Goodrich v. RL DRESSER, INC.
Decision Date | 02 December 2003 |
Docket Number | No. COA02-1584.,COA02-1584. |
Citation | 588 S.E.2d 511 |
Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Parties | James and Mae GOODRICH, Parents, Constance C. Goodrich, Wife, Danielle Rohde, Andrew Hanner and Allen Hanner, Minor Stepchildren, by their Guardian Ad Litem Gale Edwards, of Douglas A. Goodrich, Deceased, Employee, Plaintiffs, v. R.L. DRESSER, INC., Employer, Key Risk Insurance Company, Carrier; Defendants. |
Michael A. Ellis, for plaintiff-appellant Constance C. Goodrich.
Patterson, Dilthey, Clay, Bryson & Anderson, L.L.P., by Justin D. Robertson and Hedrick & Morton, L.L.P., by Jerry L. Wilkins, Jr., Wilmington, for plaintiff-appellants James and Mae Goodrich.
Whitley, Jenkins & Riddle, by J. Christopher Brantley and Gene A. Riddle, Goldsboro, for plaintiff-appellees Danielle Rohde, Andrew Hanner and Allen Hanner.
Lewis & Roberts, P.L.L.C., by Richard M. Lewis and Jeffery A. Misenheimer, Raleigh, for defendant-appellants.
Plaintiffs James and Mae Goodrich, plaintiff Constance C. Goodrich and defendants R.L. Dresser, Inc., and Key Risk Insurance Co., appeal an opinion and award entered 27 June 2002 by the North Carolina Industrial Commission that awarded death benefits to the minor stepchildren of decedent-employee Douglas A. Goodrich and denied any benefits to decedent's widow or his parents. For the reasons discussed below, we remand to the Full Commission for additional findings and conclusions, and revision of the award.
Douglas A. Goodrich ("decedent"), an employee of defendant R.L. Dresser, Inc., suffered an admittedly compensable injury arising out of his employment, resulting in his death on 9 November 1999. At the time of his death, decedent was married to Constance C. Goodrich ("Ms.Goodrich"), and was the step-father of Ms. Goodrich's three biological children from previous marriages, Danielle Rohde, Andrew Hanner and Allen Hanner ("the step-children"). James and Mae Goodrich ("the parents") were the decedent's parents. Ms. Goodrich and the step-children were living apart from decedent at the time of his death, and decedent had filed for divorce from Ms. Goodrich a few days before his death. These plaintiffs disagreed over which of them were entitled to the death benefits.
Deputy Commissioner Morgan S. Chapman heard the case 2 November 2000. Defendant-employer did not contest causation or compensability. Rather, the issue in this "dependency" hearing was to whom benefits would be paid. Decedent's parents claimed the benefits as next of kin, asserting that Ms. Goodrich did not qualify as a "widow" under N.C. Gen Stat. § 97-39, and that the stepchildren were not "children" because they were not substantially dependent on decedent, as required by N.C. Gen.Stat. § 97-38. Deputy Commissioner Chapman issued an opinion and award 22 March 2001 in which she found that neither the wife nor the stepchildren were dependent on decedent for support. Finding no persons wholly or partially dependent on decedent, the deputy commissioner awarded the benefits to decedent's parents as next-of-kin, under N.C. Gen.Stat. § 97-38. Ms. Goodrich and the stepchildren gave notice of appeal to the Full Commission.
In an opinion and award filed 27 June 2002, the Full Commission affirmed the opinion and award denying benefits to Ms. Goodrich, but reversed as to the step-children, concluding that they qualified as "children" because they were substantially dependent on decedent and awarding them the benefits, to the exclusion of decedent's parents. Below are some of the findings of fact by the Full Commission, which have not been challenged on appeal:
Following additional detailed findings about the decedent's contributions to the household expenses of the stepchildren, the Commission concluded that all three minor stepchildren were substantially dependent on decedent and thus conclusively presumed to be wholly dependent on him at the time of his death under N.C. Gen.Stat. § 97-38. The Commission further concluded that Ms. Goodrich was not a widow under the terms of N.C. Gen.Stat. § 97-2 because she was not living with him, was not living apart from him for justifiable cause, and was not dependent upon decedent for support.
The scope of our review of a decision of the Industrial Commission has been clearly delineated by our Supreme Court: "(1) the full Commission is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence, and (2) appellate courts reviewing Commission decisions are limited to reviewing whether any competent evidence supports the Commission's findings of fact and whether the findings of fact support the Commission's conclusions of law." Deese v. Champion Int'l Corp., 352 N.C. 109, 116, 530 S.E.2d 549, 553 (2000). Further, in our review we without regard to whether there was evidence that would have supported contrary findings. Adams v. AVX Corp., 349 N.C. 676, 681, 509 S.E.2d 411, 414 (1998) (citation and quotation marks omitted), reh'g denied, 350 N.C. 108, 532 S.E.2d 522 (1999). In doing so, we are required to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Id.
The Deputy Commissioner and Full Commission faced the task of determining who was statutorily entitled to receive compensation under the terms of the Workers Compensation Act following decedent's death. The Act specifies that widow and children, as defined, are conclusively presumed to have been wholly dependent on decedent. N.C. Gen Stat. § 97-39. The essential provisions of the Act read as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Barnette v. Lowe's Home Ctrs., Inc.
...to the Commission for entry of conclusions of law that are supported. See, e.g., Goodrich v. R.L. Dresser, Inc., 161 N.C.App. 394, 403, 588 S.E.2d 511, 517 (2003).II. Findings of fact 4, 6, & 7Barnette first argues that no competent evidence supports the Commission's findings of fact 4, 6, ......
- Bryant v. Williams
-
Easley v. TLC Cos.
...regard to whether there was evidence that would have supported contrary findings.” Goodrich v. R.L. Dresser, Inc.,161 N.C.App. 394, 398, 588 S.E.2d 511, 514 (2003). “The Commission's findings of fact are conclusive on appeal when they are supported by competent evidence, even when there is ......
-
Thompson v. J.H. Honeycutt & Sons, Inc.
...determined Aniyah's residence with Decedent for seventy-five percent of the year constituted substantial dependency. See Goodrich, 161 N.C.App. at 401, 588 S.E.2d at 516. Contrary to Appellant's assertions, there is evidence in the record to support this conclusion. See Winstead, 73 N.C.App......