Moose v. Watkins, I.C. NOS. 804798 PH-1959.

Injury date: November 25, 2006; cervical and head injury alleged.
Plaintiff sought compensation for TTD, TPD, PPD, and medical treatment.
Defendant Diane Watkins owned property and acted as owner/builder, not a general contractor.
Watkins owned five mill houses and employed a crew for renovation; Eddie Bingham acted as a general contractor for scheduling and oversight.
Plaintiff worked as a framer for renovation at 112 Seventh Avenue under Watkins’ employment; Watkins controlled hiring, tools, materials, and timekeeping.
Plaintiff’s injury occurred during deck construction at 112 Seventh Avenue; subsequent medical imaging showed cervical disc herniation and radicular pain; treatment followed, with ongoing pain and limited ability to pay for care.
Defendant contends there was no WC insurance coverage, and no statutory employment relationship; the commission later found owner/builder status rather than principal/subcontractor.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendant is subject to the Act and WCIC jurisdiction.	Plaintiff argues defendant was the project employer.	Watkins contends she was owner/builder, not a principal contractor or statutory employer.	Defendant is not a statutory employer; owner/builder status excluded from §97-19.
Was plaintiff an employee at the time of the accident?	Plaintiff alleges employee status under Watkins’ project.	Watkins asserts no employer-employee relationship under statutory framework.	Plaintiff not an employee under statutory definitions; owner/builder engaged independently.
Did plaintiff sustain a compensable injury by accident and deserve benefits?	Injury arose from work-related deck construction.	Watkins contends accident not within WC scope due to owner/builder status.	No WC compensable injury award; claim denied.
Should claim be dismissed due to owner vs. general contractor status?	Plaintiff relies on employment relationship to sustain claim.	Owner/builder status defeats contractor-subcontractor framework under §97-19.	Owner/builder status precludes statutory employer/contractor liability.
Any penalties for failure to provide workers' compensation insurance?	Penalties apply for noncompliance if coverage was required.	No evidence PH-1959 subject to WC insurance; no penalties.	No penalties imposed due to lack of evidence of required coverage.

Purser v. Heatherlin Properties, 137 N.C. App. 332, 527 S.E.2d 689 (2000) (discusses owner/builder and statutory employer concepts under §97-19)
Mayhew v. Howell, 102 N.C. App. 269, 401 S.E.2d 831 (1991) (owner/builder not a statutory employer under Mayhew framework)
Evans v. Tabor City Lumber Co., 232 N.C. 111, 59 S.E.2d 612 (1952) (origin of contractor/subcontractor distinction for original contractor)