Mastanduno v. Nat'l Freight Indus.

• Decision Date: 16 October 2018
• Docket Number: No. COA17-1058,COA17-1058
• Court: North Carolina Court of Appeals
• Parties: Vincent MASTANDUNO, Employee, Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL FREIGHT INDUSTRIES, Employer, and American Zurich Insurance Co., Carrier, Defendants.

262 N.C.App. 77

821 S.E.2d 592

Vincent MASTANDUNO, Employee, Plaintiff,

v.NATIONAL FREIGHT INDUSTRIES, Employer, and American Zurich Insurance Co., Carrier, Defendants.

No. COA17-1058

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: October 16, 2018

Law Offices of John M Kirby, by John M. Kirby, Raleigh, for plaintiff-appellant.

Teague, Campbell, Dennis & Gorham, L.L.P., by S. Scott Farwell and Bruce A. Hamilton, Raleigh, for defendants-appellees.

MURPHY, Judge.

This case requires that we examine the relationship between a public document entitled an "Opinion and Award" ("Award") and a workers' compensation claimant's privacy interest in the personal medical information relevant to the resolution of his claim. Every year, the North Carolina Industrial Commission enters hundreds of Awards, which are the written records of decision for adjudicated workers' compensation claims. After these Awards are entered, they are uploaded to a publicly accessible and searchable online database.¹ Due to the fact that workers' compensation claims arise from physical injuries suffered at work, the evidentiary findings contained within an Award often directly address a claimant's medical conditions and employment history.

In prior proceedings before the Industrial Commission, Plaintiff unsuccessfully moved to have his entire case file sealed. He complained that due to the Commission's policy to make Awards available to the public online, Plaintiff's personal and medical information (which becomes part of that Award) will be disseminated and his privacy interest in avoiding the disclosure of this information will be compromised. On appeal, Plaintiff argues that he has a privacy interest rooted in statute and the U.S. Constitution, and contends this interest can only be protected by a judicial order that preemptively seals his entire workers' compensation case file, including any future Award entered for his claim. After careful review, we conclude that there is no statutory or constitutional basis that obligates the Industrial Commission to seal Plaintiff's workers' compensation file.

BACKGROUND

On 29 May 2012, Vincent Mastanduno ("Plaintiff"), while employed as a truck driver, slipped and fell on a wet floor while moving a pallet during work, injuring his lower back. On 11 September 2012, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Accident with the Industrial Commission to obtain workers' compensation benefits. His employer at the time, Defendant National Freight Industries, filed a Form 60 Employer's Admission of Employee's Right to Compensation on 19 November 2012 for temporary total compensation in the amount of $740.56 per week. National Freight Industries was covered by a workers' compensation insurance policy through American Zurich Insurance Company (collectively "Defendants").

Several years later on 14 March 2016, Defendants filed a Form 33 with the Industrial Commission requesting that Plaintiff's workers' compensation claim be assigned for a hearing. Defendants alleged that Plaintiff was no longer disabled and refused to cooperate with medical treatment authorized and paid for by Defendants. Plaintiff filed his response, denying that he had not been compliant with Defendant's direction for medical care and further claiming that he remained disabled. On 29 March 2016, the Industrial Commission entered an order permitting Plaintiff's counsel at the time to withdraw. Plaintiff then proceeded pro se. Plaintiff's initial hearing was set for 12 July 2016, and the matter was assigned to Deputy Commissioner Tyler Younts.

On 6 June 2016, prior to Plaintiff's July 2016 evidentiary hearing, Plaintiff moved to have all information regarding his hearing sealed "so that it is not a matter of public record." Deputy Commissioner Younts subsequently entered an order denying Plaintiff's request to seal his file, concluding that "Plaintiff's Workers' Compensation claim file is not a public record[,]" and "to the extent that certain Orders and Awards of the Commission are public records, Plaintiff has provided no factual or legal basis for the relief sought." Plaintiff then requested Deputy Commissioner Younts to reconsider his previous motion and a conference call was held on 24 June 2016. Plaintiff expressed various privacy concerns associated with the potential use of his personal medical information. Deputy Commissioner Younts again denied Plaintiff's request to seal his file, concluding:

Nevertheless, it remains the case that all injured workers involved in litigation before the Industrial Commission operate under the same privacy rules. Thus, the undersigned finds insufficient basis for the extraordinary relief Plaintiff seeks.

Plaintiff then appealed Deputy Commissioner Younts' denial to the Full Commission. Because the Deputy Commissioner's order was interlocutory, Plaintiff was required to submit reasons warranting immediate review by the Full Commission. Plaintiff's primary privacy concern is that Awards of the Industrial Commission are made available to the public and immediately placed online, and, therefore, third parties could use personal and medical information included therein to his detriment.² Plaintiff also alleged that the denial of his motion to seal infringed on his Ninth and Fourteenth Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution.

On 10 April 2017, Plaintiff's Motion to Seal was heard by the Full Commission, and on 22 May 2017 the Commission denied Plaintiff's motion. The Full Commission concluded that pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 97-92(b), the Opinions and Awards of the Commission are public records, but the medical records and other evidence upon which an Award would be premised are not. The Commission also concluded that "Plaintiff has offered no evidence or legal argument which would justify his claim being treated differently than that of any other injured worker who is seeking benefits under the Act." Finally, the Full Commission's order correctly recognized that it did not have jurisdiction to rule on Plaintiff's Ninth and Fourteenth Amendment arguments because the Commission does not have jurisdiction to rule on constitutional issues.³ Plaintiff timely appealed the Full Commission's 22 May 2017 denial of his Motion to Seal.

Represented by counsel on appeal, Plaintiff argues that the Industrial Commission was obligated to seal his entire file upon request because "[p]ursuant to North Carolina statutory law and federal Constitutional law, a person has a right to privacy with respect to his or her medical information."

GROUNDS FOR APPELLATE REVIEW

Plaintiff's appeal is interlocutory as the Full Commission's order does not finally dispose of all issues in the matter. However, "immediate appeal may be taken from an interlocutory order when the challenged order affects a substantial right of the appellant that would be lost without immediate review." France v. France , 209 N.C. App. 406, 411, 705 S.E.2d 399, 404-05 (2011) (citation and alteration omitted). "No hard and fast rules exist for determining which appeals affect a substantial right. Rather, such decisions usually require consideration of the facts of the particular case." Estrada v. Jaques , 70 N.C. App. 627, 640, 321 S.E.2d 240, 249 (1984) (citation omitted).

Plaintiff argues that a substantial right is affected because any Award in this matter will necessarily contain some of Plaintiff's medical information and this information will be made available online at the time the Award is entered. Thus, because the Full Commission has denied his motion to seal on the grounds that there is no legal basis for Plaintiff's requested relief, Plaintiff's privacy rights will be lost absent review by this court. Plaintiff cites several cases in support of his right to appellate review. See France , 209 N.C. App. at 411, 705 S.E.2d at 405 ("Absent immediate review, documents that have been ordered sealed will be unsealed, and proceedings will be held open to the public. Because the only manner in which Plaintiff may prevent this from happening is through immediate appellate review, we hold that a substantial right of Plaintiff is affected...."); Velez v. Dick Keffer Pontiac GMC Truck, Inc ., 144 N.C. App. 589, 592, 551 S.E.2d 873, 875 (2001) ("While certainly if the Financial Privacy Act was implicated here, it would raise a substantial right....").

For the purpose of determining whether the challenged order affects a substantial right, we need not definitively decide at the outset whether Plaintiff's personal or medical information would fall within the scope of any specific statutory or constitutional privacy protections. Rather, it is sufficient that absent immediate review, some of Plaintiff's personal and medical information will be made available to the public upon entry of a final Award and that some of this information might be subject to statutory and constitutional privacy protections. See Woods v. Moses Cone Health Sys ., 198 N.C. App. 120, 124, 678 S.E.2d 787, 791 (2009) (finding the production of documents which might be protected by statute to affect a substantial right). Plaintiff has therefore demonstrated that the order denying his motion to seal by the Full Commission affects a substantial right.

Finally, since the Industrial Commission did not have jurisdiction to pass upon Plaintiff's constitutional privacy claims, it is appropriate for this Court, as the first destination for the dispute in the General Court of Justice, to address these constitutional arguments even though they were not passed upon below. See Redmond , 369 N.C. at 497, 797 S.E.2d at 280 ("When an appeal lies directly to the Appellate Division from an administrative tribunal, in the absence of any statutory provision to the contrary a constitutional challenge may be raised for the first time in the Appellate Division as it is the first destination for the dispute in the General Court of Justice.").

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff argues that he has "a Constitutional and statutory right to confidentiality over his private...