208 N.C. App. 555
N.C. Ct. App.2010Background
- The Full Commission found plaintiff sustained a compensable July 22, 2006 back injury while moving a stack base.
- Defendant-employer produced a heavy-duty job description for a maintenance associate demanding lifting up to 50 pounds without assistance and regular heavy lifting.
- Plaintiff's medical treatment began with Dr. Maultsby; restrictions started at five-to-ten pounds lifting, later gradually lifting as restrictions were eased.
- Dr. Huffmon later treated plaintiff for sacroiliitis; Dr. Brown suggested a desk or management-type position if possible.
- As of the hearing, defendant-employer had not offered plaintiff any alternative job; plaintiff continued performing floor crew duties.
- The Commission awarded medical expenses and designated Dr. Huffmon as treating physician; defendants appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parsons presumption on compensability | McLeod satisfied compensability; Form 60 creates presumption. | Degenerative disease preexisted and not tied to the 2006 injury; evidence rebuts presumption. | Parsons presumption not rebutted; compensability established. |
| Whether floor crew position is suitable employment | All doctors agree heavy work worsens pain; position not suitable. | If capable, employee should accept suitable work; burden on employer to show refusal. | Full Commission correctly found the job was not suitable. |
| Evidence sufficiency for medical-relief award | Medical treatments/treatment sequence support compensability. | Some doctors linked to preexisting conditions; not directly related. | Evidence supports continuing medical expenses; presumption controls rebuttal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Perez v. Am Airlines/AMR Corp., 174 N.C.App. 128, 620 S.E.2d 288 (2005) (presumption of direct relation once Form 60 is filed)
- Munns v. Precision Franchising, Inc., 196 N.C.App. 315, 674 S.E.2d 430 (2009) (burden on employer to show employee refused suitable employment)
- Davis v. Hospice & Palliative Care, 692 S.E.2d 631 (2010) (uncontested findings binding on appeal)