Parsons v. Pantry, Inc.
| Decision Date | 17 June 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. COA96-853,COA96-853 |
| Citation | 485 S.E.2d 867,126 N.C.App. 540 |
| Parties | Effie PARSONS, Plaintiff-employee, v. The PANTRY, INC., Defendant-employer, Self-Insured (Alexsis, Inc., Servicing Agent), Defendant-carrier. |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Law Offices of Kathleen G. Sumner by Kathleen G. Sumner, Greensboro, for plaintiff-appellant.
Ward and Smith, P.A. by Catherine Ricks Piwowarski and S. McKinley Gray, III, New Bern, for defendant-appellee.
Plaintiff appeals from opinion and award by the full Commission denying her further medical expenses as a result of her compensable injury. We reverse and remand.
On 30 April 1991, plaintiff was an assistant manager at one of defendant-employer's stores. Late that night, two men entered the store. One of them struck plaintiff in the forehead and shot her four times with a stun gun. By opinion and award filed 9 December 1993, the Industrial Commission concluded that plaintiff suffered compensable injuries as a result of the 30 April 1991 occurrence. The Commission ordered defendants to pay plaintiff's medical expenses but ruled that plaintiff was not entitled to any temporary total disability compensation. The Industrial Commission further ordered defendants to pay for "such future medical treatment which tends to effect a cure, give relief, or lessen the plaintiff's period of disability." Neither side appealed from this order.
On 11 August 1994, plaintiff requested a hearing, citing defendants' failure to pay medical expenses. The deputy commissioner concluded that plaintiff was not entitled to further medical treatment as a result of her compensable injury absent a change of condition, but ordered defendants to pay her medical bills to the date of the filing of that opinion and award. The decision denying further treatment was based on the conclusion that "there is no competent medical evidence relating her current complaints to her compensable injury or suggesting that there is any need for further medical treatment." The full Commission affirmed the deputy's decision.
Our review of Industrial Commission decisions is limited to consideration of whether competent evidence supports the findings of fact and whether the findings support the Commission's legal conclusions. Simon v. Triangle Materials, Inc., 106 N.C.App. 39, 41, 415 S.E.2d 105, 106, disc. review denied, 332 N.C. 347, 421 S.E.2d 154 (1992). "However, if the findings are predicated on an erroneous view of the law or a misapplication of the law, they are not conclusive on appeal." Id.
On appeal, plaintiff argues that the full Commission erred in concluding that she was not entitled to further medical treatment. The parties disagree over one crucial factor: who has the burden to prove whether plaintiff's current medical problems and the compensable injury are causally related for purposes of awarding additional medical compensation. The Industrial Commission placed the burden on plaintiff, finding that "Plaintiff has not introduced any evidence of causation between her injury and her headache complaints at the time of the hearing" and "Plaintiff has failed to meet her burden of proof for showing the necessity of continued or additional medical treatment." Plaintiff maintains that this was error because it is defendants' duty to prove that her current pain is not the result of her compensable accident. Defendants argue that the Commission properly imposed the burden upon plaintiff to prove a causal link between her current problems and the compensable injury. Neither side provides precedent in this case of first impression in North Carolina.
N.C. Gen.Stat. section 97-25 requires employers to pay future medical compensation when the treatment lessens the period of disability , effects a cure or gives relief. Little v. Penn Ventilator Co., 317 N.C. 206, 210, 345 S.E.2d 204, 207 (1986). "Logically implicit" in this statute is the requirement that the future medical treatment be "directly related to the original compensable injury." Pittman v. Thomas & Howard, 122 N.C.App. 124, 130, 468 S.E.2d 283, 286, disc. review denied, 343 N.C. 513, 472 S.E.2d 18 (1996). In determining which side should bear the burden of proof on this issue, we are mindful that "the Workers' Compensation Act was never intended to be a general accident and health insurance policy." Weaver v. Swedish Imports Maintenance, Inc., 319 N.C. 243, 253, 354 S.E.2d 477, 483 (1987). However, we also note that the Act is to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pine v. Wal-Mart Assocs., Inc.
...for causation of an injury. At issue is whether the North Carolina Industrial Commission erred by applying this presumption, known as the Parsons presumption, to a medical condition not listed on an employer's admission of compensability form.Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., employer, and Nationa......
-
Wilkes v. City of Greenville
...Wilkes , N.C.App. at ––––, ––––, 777 S.E.2d at 287-88, 292. In light of the court’s previous decisions in Parsons v. Pantry, Inc. , 126 N.C.App. 540, 485 S.E.2d 867 (1997), and Perez v. American Airlines/AMR Corp. , 174 N.C.App. 128, 620 S.E.2d 288 (2005), disc. rev. improvidently allowed p......
-
Holshouser v. Shaner Hotel Group Properties
...employer's premises. In view of the foregoing facts and liberally construing the Act in favor of coverage, see Parsons v. Pantry, Inc., 126 N.C.App. 540, 485 S.E.2d 867 (1997), I am of the opinion that the assault on plaintiff was a natural and probable consequence of plaintiff's employment......
-
Harrell v. Edgecombe Cnty. Pub. Sch.
...when it is “the direct result of a specific traumatic incident of the work assigned[.]” Id. Plaintiff cites to Parsons v. Pantry, Inc., 126 N.C.App. 540, 485 S.E.2d 867 (1997), for her contention that once the Commission has found a claim to be compensable, a rebuttable presumption arises t......