McAuley v. North Carolina A&T State University
| Decision Date | 07 December 2021 |
| Docket Number | COA20-923 |
| Parties | Angela MCAULEY, Widow of Steven L. McAuley, Deceased employee, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NORTH CAROLINA A&T STATE UNIVERSITY, Employer, and Self-Insured (Corvel Corporation, Third-Party Administrator), Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Daggett Shuler, Winston Salem, by Griffis C. Shuler, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Assistant Attorney General Brittany K. Brown, for Defendant-Appellee.
¶ 1 Plaintiff appeals from an opinion and award of the North Carolina Industrial Commission concluding that it lacked jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff's claim on its merits. For the following reasons, we affirm the North Carolina Industrial Commission lacks jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff's claim on the merits.
¶ 2 On 30 January 2015, Mr. Steven McAuley ("Decedent") suffered an injury to his back while employed by North Carolina A&T State University ("Defendant"). On 11 February 2015, Decedent filed a Form 18, Notice of Accident to Employer and Claim of Employee. On 21 February 2015, Decedent passed away, leaving behind a dependent widow, Mrs. Angela McAuley ("Plaintiff"). On 16 March 2015, Defendant filed a Form 63 and thereafter paid temporary total disability compensation and medical compensation to Decedent. "Within a couple of weeks" of Decedent's death, Plaintiff attended a meeting with representatives from Defendant's human resources department to sign papers related to insurance policies and an accidental death insurance policy. Plaintiff testified that at the time, she believed she was signing all the paperwork related to Decedent's death and the benefits she was entitled to.
¶ 3 On 18 January 2018, almost three years after the death of Decedent, Plaintiff filed a Form 33 Request that Claim be Assigned for Hearing with the North Carolina Industrial Commission ("Industrial Commission") seeking death benefits. On 15 May 2018, Defendant filed a Form 33R Response to Request that Claim be Assigned for Hearing, asserting the Industrial Commission "lack[ed] jurisdiction to hear any death claim brought by the next of kin as the same was not timely filed under [N.C. Gen. Stat.] § 97-24." Defendant also filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's death claim as time barred under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-24 (2017) and § 97-22 (2017).
¶ 4 On 30 July 2018, Deputy Commissioner Tyler Younts entered an order holding Defendant's motion to dismiss in abeyance. The order also bifurcated the parties’ hearing, separating the issue of the Industrial Commission's jurisdiction in the case from the issue of the proximate cause of Decedent's death. On 31 October 2018, Deputy Commissioner Younts filed an Opinion and Award denying Plaintiff's claim for death benefits with prejudice, concluding as a matter of law the Industrial Commission did not acquire jurisdiction of Plaintiff's death claim, as Plaintiff had not timely filed.
¶ 5 On 13 November 2018, Plaintiff appealed the 31 October 2018 Opinion and Award. On 28 August 2020, the Full Commission1 of the Industrial Commission filed its Opinion and Award again denying Plaintiff's claim and dismissing the claim with prejudice. Industrial Commission Chair Phillip A. Baddour, III dissented from the Opinion and Award of the Full Commission in a separate opinion. On 23 September 2020, Plaintiff filed her notice of appeal to this Court.
¶ 6 Jurisdiction lies in this Court as a matter of right over a final judgment from the North Carolina Industrial Commission pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-29(a) (2019).
¶ 7 The issue on appeal is whether a deceased employee's filed claim qualifies as a dependent's "filing" for purposes of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-24.
¶ 8 The standard for appellate review of an opinion and award of the Industrial Commission is limited to "(1) whether the findings of fact are supported by competent evidence, and (2) whether the conclusions of law are supported by the findings." Barham v. Food World, Inc. , 300 N.C. 329, 331, 266 S.E.2d 676, 678, reh'g denied , 300 N.C. 562, 270 S.E.2d 105 (1980). "The findings of fact by the Industrial Commission are conclusive on appeal if supported by ... competent evidence." Adams v. AVX Corp. , 349 N.C. 676, 681, 509 S.E.2d 411, 414 (1998). The Industrial Commission's conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. Allen v. Roberts Elec. Contrs. , 143 N.C. App. 55, 63, 546 S.E.2d 133, 139 (2001).
¶ 9 Our Courts have explained that "the timely filing of a claim for compensation is a condition precedent to the right to receive compensation and failure to file timely is a jurisdictional bar for the Industrial Commission." Reinhardt v. Women's Pavilion, Inc. , 102 N.C. App. 83, 86, 401 S.E.2d 138, 140 (1991).
¶ 10 N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-24 states, in relevant part:
¶ 11 While death benefits are not specifically mentioned in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-24(a), the text of the statute refers to "compensation," a term defined in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-2 as encompassing "the money allowance payable to an employee or to his dependents as provided for in this Article, and includes funeral benefits provided herein." N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-2(11) (2019). We therefore agree with the Full Commission in its conclusion the timeliness of death claims is contemplated and governed by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-24(a).
¶ 12 Plaintiff contends the Industrial Commission initially obtained jurisdiction of this matter when Decedent filed his Form 18 on 11 February 2015, within the two-year deadline prescribed by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-24. If this Court were to agree with Plaintiff, the Industrial Commission would have jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff's claim on its merits. However, for the following reasons, we hold Plaintiff did not assert a claim for compensation until her filing of a Form 33 on 18 January 2018, more than two years after her cause of action arose, and Decedent's filing of a Form 18 within the two-year deadline cannot qualify as a filing for the purposes of Plaintiff's separate cause of action.
¶ 13 Our case law points to the conclusion Plaintiff's claim for death and funeral benefits arose only upon Decedent's death, not concurrent with Decedent's own, separate filing of a Form 18 for workers’ compensation benefits. Death and funeral benefits were not at issue at the time of the filing of the Form 18 and could not have been raised during Decedent's lifetime. Plaintiff's pursuit of benefits as Decedent's widow and sole dependent is a separate claim from that filed originally by Decedent prior to his death. See, e.g. , Booker v. Duke Med. Ctr. , 297 N.C. 458, 466, 256 S.E.2d 189, 195 (1979) (); Brown v. N.C. Dep't of Pub. Safety , 254 N.C. App. 374, 378, 802 S.E.2d 776, 780 (2017) (); Pait v. Se. Gen. Hosp. , 219 N.C. App. 403, 414, 724 S.E.2d 618, 627 (2012) (). We agree with the majority of the Full Commission that Decedent's filing of a Form 18 for workers’ compensation benefits had no effect on when Plaintiff's cause of action arose.
¶ 14 Our dissenting colleague considers this matter in the context of a civil wrongful death claim by analogy. We agree the civil wrongful death analysis is not controlling in the worker's compensation context. Our dissenting colleague notes the Official Comment to N.C. R. Civ. P. Rule 15(c) (2019) provides in part: "[t]he amended pleading will therefore relate back if the new pleading merely amplifies the old cause of action, or now even if the new pleading constitutes a new cause of action, provided that the defending party had originally been placed on notice of the events involved." Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted). Rule 15(c), however, does not allow for the relation back of a different cause of action, carried by a separate plaintiff, when said cause of action is still time-barred.
¶ 15 In Williams v. Advance Auto Parts, Inc. , this Court clarified "a new and independent [cause] of action and cannot be permitted when the statute of limitations has run." Id. , 251 N.C. App. 712, 713, 795 S.E.2d 647, 649 (2017).
Under the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may amend a pleading "once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served[.]" N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 15(a) (2015). Amendment to substitute a party is within the scope of the rule, although doing so represents the creation of "a new and independent [cause] of action and cannot be permitted when the statute of limitations has run." If the statute of limitations has expired in the interim between the filing and the amendment, a plaintiff may preserve his claim only if the amendment can be said to relate back to the date of the original claim under Rule 15(c) ....
Williams , 251 N.C. App. at 717-18, 795 S.E.2d at 651-52 (internal citations omitted). As we previously iterated, our case law...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- In re R.B.
-
Cromartie v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
...whether the conclusions of law are supported by the findings." McAuley v. N.C. A&T State Univ. , 280 N.C. App. 473, 2021-NCCOA-657, ¶ 8, 868 S.E.2d 131 (citation omitted). "As long as the Commission's findings are supported by competent evidence of record, they will not be overturned on app......