Caskie v. R.M. Butler & Co.

• Court: North Carolina Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: PARKER
• Citation: Caskie v. R.M. Butler & Co., 354 S.E.2d 242, 85 N.C.App. 266 (N.C. App. 1987)
• Decision Date: 07 April 1987
• Docket Number: No. 8610IC967,8610IC967
• Parties: Jennifer CASKIE, Employee-Plaintiff, v. R.M. BUTLER & COMPANY, Employer, Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, Carrier-Defendants.

Page 242

354 S.E.2d 242

85 N.C.App. 266

Jennifer CASKIE, Employee-Plaintiff, v. R.M. BUTLER & COMPANY, Employer, Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, Carrier-Defendants.

No. 8610IC967.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

April 7, 1987.

Ling and Farran by Jeffrey P. Farran, Greensboro, for employee-plaintiff.

Smith, Helms, Mulliss and Moore by J. Donald Cowan, Jr., Greensboro, for carrier-defendants.

PARKER, Judge.

Plaintiff's sole assignment of error is that the Industrial Commission erred in concluding that her injury was not the result of a "specific traumatic incident" but developed gradually and was not, therefore, an accident within the coverage of the Workers' Compensation Act for back injuries.

In 1983, G.S. 97-2(6) was amended to read as follows:

"Injury and personal injury" shall mean only injury by accident arising out of and in the course of the employment,.... With respect to back injuries, however, where the injury to the back arises out of and in the course of the employment and is the direct result of a specific traumatic incident of the work assigned, "injury by accident" shall be construed to include any disabling physical injury to the back arising out of and causally related to such incident.

General Statute 97-2(6).

The "specific traumatic incident" amendment was intended by the legislature to supplement the law related to back injuries, not to supplant it. The effect of the amendment was to eliminate the need to show an external cause or unusual conditions in order for a worker to receive compensation for a back injury. Instead, what may be shown is that the back injury arose in the course of the employment and that the injury was "the direct result of a specific traumatic incident of the work assigned." G.S. 97-2(6).

If the injury arises out of and in the course of employment and is the result of a "specific traumatic incident," then the statute as amended mandates that the injury be construed to be "injury by accident." However, if there is no "specific traumatic incident," a claimant should still be provided coverage if he or she meets the definition of "injury by accident" contained in the first sentence of G.S. 97-2(6), as interpreted by our courts.

Under our case law, a back injury is considered to be an "injury by accident" where it is the result of an unlooked for and untoward event not expected or designed by the injured employee, and is not the result of inherent weakness and not an ordinary and expected incident of employment. E.g., Edwards v. Publishing Co., 227 N.C. 184, 41 S.E.2d 592 (1947). This interpretation includes lifting of an unusually heavy object, e.g., Davis v. Summitt, 259 N.C. 57, 129 S.E.2d 588 (1963), or twisting and straining which is not a part of the injured worker's regular work routine, e.g., Searcy v. Branson, 253 N.C. 64, 116 S.E.2d 175 (1960).

In our opinion, the Commission erred in concluding as a matter of law that plaintiff's injury was not the result of an accident. Plaintiff testified that the repeated lifting of the cases of cigarettes, coupled with the twisting and contorting in a...