Rorie v. McKinnon
I.C. NO. 571287.
| N.C. Indus. Comm. | May 2, 2011Background
- Plaintiff sustained an admittedly compensable back injury on October 22, 2005 in the course of employment with Defendant-Employer, a heavy labor material handler job.
- Stipulated weekly wage at injury was $501.84, yielding a compensation rate of $334.56; Industrial Commission has jurisdiction over the matter.
- Plaintiff sought continued medical treatment and vocational rehabilitation; various doctors provided pain management, physical therapy, and work restrictions over time.
- Defendant-Employer modified Plaintiff's post-injury work duties (notably a sub-assembly position) to accommodate restrictions, with cross-effects on wages and advancement opportunities.
- The matter culminated in a Full Commission award affirming Deputy Commissioner Gillen’s opinion with modifications, including TT disability, medical care responsibility, and vocational rehabilitation.
- Key findings include credibility of Plaintiff’s pain complaints, lack of suitable competitive employment within restrictions, and the need for ongoing medical and psychological treatment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Plaintiff is totally disabled due to the 2005 injury | Plaintiff cannot earn pre-injury wages in any employment | Defendant contends suitable jobs exist and Plaintiff can obtain work within restrictions | Plaintiff remains temporarily totally disabled; no suitable competitive employment found |
| Whether the post-injury sub-assembly job is suitable employment | Job is not readily available in the competitive market and wages/advancement are inadequate | Job is within restrictions and constitutes suitable employment within the market | Sub-assembly job is not suitable employment under Dixon standards; not a viable path to wage-earning capacity |
| What medical and vocational benefits are due | Defendant must cover all necessary medical treatment and provide vocational rehabilitation | Defendant should control medical and vocational costs and ensure eligible treatments | Plaintiff entitled to ongoing medical, chiropractic, psychological treatment, gym membership, surgical consultation, and vocational rehabilitation |
Key Cases Cited
- Fish v. Steelcase, Inc., 116 N.C. App. 703 (1994) (recognizes compensable injury and related disability principles)
- Brown v. Family Dollar Distrib. Ctr., 129 N.C. App. 361 (1998) (pre-existing condition aggravation framework)
- Franklin v. Broyhill Furn. Ind., 123 N.C. App. 200 (1996) (definition of 'suitable' work and rebuttal of continuing disability)
- Kisiah v. W.R. Kisiah Plumbing, 124 N.C. App. 72 (1996) (capacity to earn; suitability in light of limitations)
- Burwell v. Winn-Dixie Raleigh, 114 N.C. App. 69 (1994) (discernment of disability and suitability of post-injury work)
- Saums v. Raleigh Hosp., 346 N.C. 760 (1997) (guidance on vocational considerations and disability analysis)
- Peoples v. Cone Mills Corp., 316 N.C. 426 (1986) (historical context for employment suitability and earnings)
- Dixon v. City of Durham, 128 N.C. App. 501 (1998) (consideration of potential for advancement and income growth in suitability)
- Russell v. Lowe's Prod. Distrib., 108 N.C. App. 762 (1993) (initial burden and proof of disability via earnings or capability)
- Hilliard v. Apex Cabinet Co., 305 N.C. 593 (1982) (burden-shifting framework for proving incapacity to earn pre-injury wages)