Murray v. MoodyÂ, 2017 N.C. App. LEXIS 142

On Aug. 3, 2010 Robert Murray was injured in a work-related auto accident caused by Joseph Moody; Murray received $7,432.13 in workers’ compensation benefits from his employer and carrier (unnamed defendants).
Murray sued Moody for negligence; a jury awarded $11,000 and the trial court entered judgment reducing the award by the amount of workers’ compensation benefits.
The trial judge later entered an amended judgment expressly awarding $7,423.13 to the employer (Evans) and the balance to Murray.
Moody later settled with Murray and then moved in superior court under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-10.2(j) to have the workers’ compensation lien amount determined.
The superior court denied Moody’s motion, holding the amended judgment had already fixed the lien amount and that the issue was res judicata; Moody appealed.
The Court of Appeals reversed, holding § 97-10.2(j) was triggered and the superior court must exercise its statutory discretion to determine the lien amount (remanding for findings).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the superior court had jurisdiction under §97-10.2(j) to determine the employer/carrier lien amount after the negligence judgment and amended judgment	Murray/unnamed defendants: the amended judgment already fixed and awarded the lien amount; relitigation is barred by res judicata and one judge should not alter another judge’s judgment	Moody: §97-10.2(j) permits either party to apply after a judgment (or settlement) for a discretionary determination of the subrogation amount; prior judgment is not an absolute bar	Court held §97-10.2(j) was triggered, the amended judgment was not res judicata as to the statutory proceeding, and the superior court must determine the lien amount in its discretion (reversed and remanded)

Radzisz v. Harley Davidson of Metrolina, Inc., 346 N.C. 84 (1997) (Workers’ Compensation Act prevents double recovery and secures employer’s lien against third-party recoveries)
Hieb v. Lowery, 344 N.C. 403 (1996) (explains interaction of superior court judge rule and §97-10.2(j); jurisdiction under §97-10.2(j) depends on whether statute’s triggering conditions are met)
Johnson v. S. Indus. Constructors, Inc., 347 N.C. 530 (1998) (applies Hieb to hold trial court lacked jurisdiction under §97-10.2(j) where judgment exceeded lien amount at time of order)
In Re Biddix, 138 N.C. App. 500 (2000) (trial court must make fact-supported findings and conclusions when exercising discretion under §97-10.2(j))
Wood v. Weldon, 160 N.C. App. 697 (2003) (no fixed formula; trial court has broad but reviewable discretion under §97-10.2(j) and must consider statutory factors)