Medlin v. Weaver Cooke Construction, LLC
367 N.C. 414
| N.C. | 2014Background
- Claude Medlin, a civil engineer and construction project manager/estimator, injured his right shoulder at work in May 2008 and continued working until laid off in November 2008 as part of widespread industry layoffs.
- Weaver Cooke accepted the injury as compensable on 22 December 2008; Medlin received overlapping unemployment and temporary total disability (TTD) benefits through March 2011.
- Medical records: initial surgery in Feb 2009; later MRI showed a possible superior labral tear likely unrelated to the May 2008 injury; treating physicians ultimately imposed permanent restrictions (≤10 lbs, no repetitive overhead).
- Vocational evidence: job analysis classified the pre-injury Estimator role as sedentary with occasional lifting to 10 lbs; vocational surveys and employer testimony indicated Medlin could perform estimator duties within his restrictions.
- Defendants filed to terminate TTD on 22 Dec 2010, arguing Medlin’s inability to obtain equivalent work resulted from the economic downturn, not his injury; the Industrial Commission and the Court of Appeals (majority) agreed and terminated payments and awarded a credit for post-termination payments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Medlin proved "disability" under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-2(9) (incapacity because of injury to earn pre-injury wages) | Medlin argued he proved disability under Russell methods (e.g., capable of some work but, after reasonable efforts, unable to obtain employment) | Defendants argued Medlin’s inability to find comparable work was due to large-scale economic downturn, not his compensable injury | Court held plaintiff must prove all three Hilliard elements, including causation; here Medlin failed to show inability to earn was because of his injury, so no disability after 22 Dec 2010 |
| Whether satisfying a Russell prong alone satisfies Hilliard causation requirement | Medlin (and dissenting appellate view) argued that proving a Russell method (e.g., reasonable job search failure) necessarily establishes Hilliard’s elements, including causation | Defendants (and majority) argued Russell methods can establish inability-to-earn elements but do not automatically prove causation | Court held Russell methods may prove the first two Hilliard elements but do not replace the statutory causation requirement; claimant must separately prove causation |
| Adequacy of Commission’s factual finding re: Estimator job requirements | Medlin contended his primary role was Project Manager and disputed the finding that Estimator work required only up to 10 lbs lifting | Defendants relied on VocMed job analysis and employer testimony supporting the Estimator classification and its physical demands | Court held Finding No. 24 was supported by competent evidence; unchallenged findings remain binding |
| Standard of review for Commission findings/conclusions | Medlin argued some factual findings lacked competent evidence | Defendants argued Commission findings are conclusive if supported by competent evidence; conclusions of law reviewed de novo | Court applied established standards: factual findings binding if supported; legal conclusions reviewed de novo; affirmed termination based on supported findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Hilliard v. Apex Cabinet Co., 305 N.C. 593, 290 S.E.2d 682 (1982) (articulates three-element Hilliard test for disability, including causation)
- Russell v. Lowe’s Prod. Distribution, 108 N.C. App. 762, 425 S.E.2d 454 (1993) (identifies four methods to prove inability to earn the same wages)
- Hendrix v. Linn-Corriher Corp., 317 N.C. 179, 345 S.E.2d 374 (1986) (explains disability concerns earning capacity, not just physical impairment)
- Clark v. Wal-Mart, 360 N.C. 41, 619 S.E.2d 491 (2005) (burden of proving disability rests with claimant)
- Demery v. Perdue Farms, Inc., 354 N.C. 355, 554 S.E.2d 337 (2001) (discussed as distinguishable; implication that Russell proof may suffice was dicta)