Powe v. Centerpoint Human Services
215 N.C. App. 395
| N.C. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- May 2001 injury to lower back and left hip; plaintiff a Human Services Clinician III for Centerpoint.
- January 2005 deputy commissioner suspended temporary total disability for vocational rehabilitation noncompliance.
- Full Commission affirmed suspension; prior appellate decision in Powe v. Centerpoint (2007) affirmed.
- May 2008 plaintiff moved to reinstate benefits asserting compliance with rehab.
- December 2008 administrative order directing reinstatement of benefits.
- February 2009 deputy commissioner found continued noncompliance but ordered benefits reinstated due to cessation of rehab by defendants; Full Commission affirmed with some findings in 2010; remand ordered to reconsider under correct legal standard for rehabilitation compliance.
- Commission held plaintiff failed to fully comply with rehab but benefits would be reinstated because defendants had ceased providing rehab as of February 22, 2008; ordered continued disability benefits and that defendants provide/that plaintiff fully comply with rehab; both parties appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper standard to determine §97-25 compliance | Powe argues only willingness to comply is needed. | Defendants contend full compliance is required. | Remand to apply substantial compliance standard, not full compliance. |
| Whether reinstatement possible when rehab ceased by defendants | Plaintiff asserts reinstatement should follow current willingness regardless of cessation. | Defendants argue cessation breaks link to ongoing rehab. | Ambiguity requires remand to determine if cessation caused by non-cooperation or other factors; benefits may or may not be reinstated. |
| Relationship between ongoing cooperation and rehabilitation effectiveness | Non-cooperation not proven to be willful; should not bar benefits. | Non-cooperation undermines rehab goals; supports suspension. | Court emphasizes evaluating whether participation substantially complied and did not significantly interfere with rehab efforts. |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. Jones Grp., Inc., 123 N.C.App. 219, 472 S.E.2d 587 (1996) (1996) (defined 'refusal' as willful disobedience; requires credibility of cooperation in rehabilitation context)
- Alphin v. Tart L.P. Gas Co., 192 N.C.App. 576, 666 S.E.2d 160 (2008) (2008) (holding that mere expressed willingness without credible conduct is insufficient for reinstatement)
- Seagraves v. Austin Co. of Greensboro, 123 N.C.App. 228, 472 S.E.2d 397 (1996) (1996) (constructive refusal framework balancing employer/employee interests in misconduct vs. injury-related wage loss)
- McRae v. Toastmaster, Inc., 358 N.C. 488, 597 S.E.2d 695 (2004) (2004) (adopted Seagraves constructive refusal analysis for termination of benefits)
- Brooks v. Capstar Corp., 168 N.C.App. 23, 606 S.E.2d 696 (2005) (2005) (cooperation evidence sufficient when employee did not sabotage rehabilitation efforts)
- Sykes v. Moss Trucking Co., 199 N.C.App. 540, 685 S.E.2d 1 (2009) (2009) (reaffirmed supervision context for rehab; distinguish order-specific requirements)
- Scurlock v. Durham Cnty. Gen. Hosp., 136 N.C.App. 144, 523 S.E.2d 439 (1999) (1999) (threshold burden to show willingness to cooperate in reinstatement)
- Clark v. Wal-Mart, 360 N.C. 41, 619 S.E.2d 491 (2005) (2005) (remand when Commission misapplies legal standards)