Thompson v. J.H. Honeycutt & Sons, Inc.

• Decision Date: 29 December 2022
• Docket Number: COA22-581
• Citation: 2022 NCCOA 939
• Court: North Carolina Court of Appeals
• Parties: DAMIR THOMPSON, Minor Child (By and Through His Guardian ad Litem, TIMOTHY C. MORRIS) of DAQUONN THOMPSON, Deceased Employee; ANIYAH THOMPSON, Minor Child (By and Through Her Guardian ad Litem, CRYSTAL WILCOX) of DAQUONN THOMPSON, Deceased Employee, and SHEILA THOMPSON, Alleged Next of Kin of DAQUONN THOMPSON, Deceased Employee; Plaintiffs, v. J.H. HONEYCUTT & SONS, INC., Employer, and NATIONAL TRUST INSURANCE COMPANY, Carrier, Defendants.

2022-NCCOA-939

DAMIR THOMPSON, Minor Child (By and Through His Guardian ad Litem, TIMOTHY C. MORRIS) of DAQUONN THOMPSON, Deceased Employee; ANIYAH THOMPSON, Minor Child (By and Through Her Guardian ad Litem, CRYSTAL WILCOX) of DAQUONN THOMPSON, Deceased Employee, and SHEILA THOMPSON, Alleged Next of Kin of DAQUONN THOMPSON, Deceased Employee; Plaintiffs, v. J.H. HONEYCUTT & SONS, INC., Employer, and NATIONAL TRUST INSURANCE COMPANY, Carrier, Defendants.

No. COA22-581

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

December 29, 2022

An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Heard in the Court of Appeals 15 November 2022.

Appeal by plaintiff from order entered 26 May 2022 by the Full Industrial Commission I.C. File No. 18-028971.

Buzzard Law Firm, by Robert A. Buzzard for Plaintiff-Appellant Timothy C. Morris, Guardian ad Litem for Damir Thompson.

The Law Office of G. Lee Martin, PA, by G. Lee Martin for Plaintiff-Appellee Crystal Wilcox, Guardian ad Litem for Aniyah Thompson.

McAngus Goudelock &Courie, PLLC, by H. George Kurani and Alexander S. Blake for Defendants-Appellees, J.H. Honeycutt &Sons, Inc. and National Trust Insurance Company.

OPINION

CARPENTER, Judge.

¶ 1 Timothy C. Morris ("Appellant"), Guardian ad Litem for Damir Thompson ("Damir"), appeals from an order of the Full Industrial Commission ("Commission") concluding Aniyah Thompson ("Aniyah") was an acknowledged, illegitimate child of Daquonn Thompson ("Decedent") who was substantially dependent on Decedent. On appeal, Appellant argues Conclusion of Law No. 7-that Aniyah was substantially dependent on Decedent-is not supported by competent evidence. After careful review, we affirm the order of the Commission.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

¶ 2 On 18 June 2018, Decedent was making a delivery in the course of his employment with J.H. Honeycutt &Sons, Inc. ("Honeycutt") when his truck went off the road and struck a telephone pole after he overcorrected. Decedent died from chest injuries inflicted in the accident. On 19 June 2018, Defendant filed a Form 19 providing notice of Decedent's death. Decedent's mother, Sheila Thompson ("Ms. Thompson"), and his two putative minor children-Aniyah and Damir-were listed as Decedent's possible dependents and next of kin.

¶ 3 On 15 July 2020, Deputy Commissioner, Lori A. Gaines, entered an Opinion and Award granting both Aniyah and Damir compensation, payable to their respective legal guardians, at a rate of $243.29 weekly from 18 June 2018 and continuing for 500 weeks or until they each reach eighteen years of age, whichever is longer. Appellant appealed this Opinion and Award to the Full Commission, arguing the Deputy Commissioner erred by concluding Aniyah was Decedent's acknowledged child and presumed "wholly dependent on Decedent."

¶ 4 The Commission made the following findings of fact, which are undisputed by the parties. Decedent and Crystal Wilcox ("Wilcox") began dating when Decedent was attending Livingstone College. On 2 November 2009, Wilcox gave birth to Aniyah. Decedent was not present at the hospital at the time of Aniyah's birth because he was at college, but Decedent returned home to visit Aniyah the following weekend. Wilcox testified Decedent is not listed as Aniyah's father on her birth certificate because Wilcox was unsure whom the biological father of Aniyah was, as she had been sexually active with a person other than Decedent. Decedent later expressed doubts about whether he was Aniyah's biological father but told Wilcox that Aniyah was "his daughter and regardless of anything that we [were] going to take care of her." Even though Decedent was aware of the possibility Aniyah was not his biological daughter, he did not want a paternity test.

¶ 5 Wilcox and Aniyah resided with Ms. Thompson after they were discharged from the hospital and continued to live with Ms. Thompson from 2010 through 2011. Decedent and Wilcox terminated their romantic relationship in 2011, but they continued to co-parent Aniyah. Decedent bought Aniyah birthday and Christmas presents, placed Aniyah on his employer's health insurance, and helped pay for her bills and expenses. Until Decedent's death, Aniyah lived with Decedent and Ms. Thompson during the school year and would visit Wilcox on weekends and in the summer. Decedent took care of Aniyah when she was with him; bought her school supplies, clothes, and necessaries; brought her to football games; and attended school functions such as "Doughnuts with Dads." Additionally, Decedent listed Aniyah as the beneficiary of the life insurance policy offered by his employer. While Aniyah was living with Decedent, Wilcox never contributed to Aniyah's needs.

¶ 6 Following Decedent's death, Ms. Thompson filed a petition seeking primary custody of Aniyah. The Consent Order granting Ms. Thompson and Wilcox "joint care, custody and control of [Aniyah], with [Ms. Thompson] having primary custody and [Wilcox] having secondary custody with visitation," listed Ms. Thompson as the paternal grandmother of Aniyah.

¶ 7 In 2019, LabCorp conducted a DNA analysis with samples from Aniyah, Ms. Thompson, and Decedent's biological brother. Results from this analysis indicated Decedent was likely not Aniyah's biological father, specifically, finding the "alleged paternal relatives were 286 times more likely to be not related to the child as opposed to related." The Commission did not find these DNA results dispositive, however, stating "[a]lthough the DNA analysis conducted after Decedent's death did not support a biological relationship, the Commission finds that by caring for Aniyah from her birth until his death, Decedent treated and acknowledged Aniyah as his child."

¶ 8 Based on these findings, the Commission concluded:

7. Decedent acknowledged Aniyah as his child. Decedent held Aniyah out to his family, Aniyah's school, and his employer, as his daughter. Decedent's obituary states that Aniyah is his daughter. Decedent's assurances to his family that Aniyah was his daughter were so accepted that Decedent's mother, Sheila Thompson, initiated a custody proceeding to become the primary guardian for Aniyah following Decedent's death. Aniyah lived with Sheila Thompson for at least two years, and Decedent and Sheila Thompson provided support for Aniyah. Given the particular circumstances of Decedent's strong acceptance of Aniyah as his daughter, the Full Commission concludes that Aniyah is Decedent's acknowledged illegitimate child and was dependent upon him for support at the time of his death.

After a review of the original Opinion and Award, the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Gaines, and the briefs and arguments of the parties, the Full Commission entered an Amended Opinion and Award ("Award") compensating both Damir and Aniyah.

II. Jurisdiction

¶ 9 This Court has jurisdiction to address Appellant's appeal pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-29 (2021).

III. Issue

¶ 10 The sole issue is whether the Commission's Conclusion of Law No. 7, that Aniyah was Decedent's acknowledged, illegitimate child who was substantially dependent upon Decedent for support at the time of his death, was supported by the findings of fact in the Award.

IV. Analysis

A. Standard of Review

¶ 11 Review of an Award of the Industrial Commission "is limited to consideration of whether competent evidence supports the Commission's findings of fact and whether the findings support the Commission's conclusions of law. This 'Court's duty goes no further than to determine whether the record contains any evidence tending to support the finding.'" Richardson v. Maxim Healthcare/Allegis Grp., 362 N.C. 657, 660, 669 S.E.2d 582, 584 (2008) (citation omitted). "[T]he Commission's designations of 'findings' and 'conclusions' are not binding on this Court, and our review extends to whether the facts found by the Commission are sufficient to support its [ultimate] conclusion[s]." Tucker v. City of Clinton, 120 N.C.App. 776, 779, 463 S.E.2d 806, 809 (1995). When interpreting The Workers' Compensation Act ("the Act"), we adhere to the "time honored rules of statutory construction with respect to [the Act]." Winstead v. Derreberry, 73 N.C.App. 35, 38, 326 S.E.2d 66, 69 (1985).

¶ 12 Relevant to our inquiry here, "the . . . [Act] should be liberally construed . . . so that benefits will not be denied upon mere technicalities or strained and narrow interpretations of its provisions." Id. at 38, 326 S.E.2d at 69 (quoting Deese v. Lawn and Tree Expert Co., 306 N.C. 275, 293 S.E.2d 140 (1982)). Furthermore, "the Industrial Commission's legal interpretation of a particular provision is persuasive, although not binding, and should be accorded some weight on appeal and not idly cast aside, since that administrative body hears and decides all questions arising under the Act in the first instance[.]" Id. at 38, 326 S.E.2d at 69. "[T]he purpose of the [Act is] to provide benefits to those individuals who have relied upon the deceased for financial support." Id. at 41, 326 S.E.2d at 71.

¶ 13 The findings of the Commission may be set aside on appeal "only if there is a complete lack of evidence to support them." Thompson v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 119 N.C.App. 411, 414, 458 S.E.2d 746, 748 (1995). Here, the Commission found, inter alia:

2. Ms. Wilcox testified that she began dating Decedent when she was fifteen years old attending high school. At the time Decedent was attending Livingstone College in Salisbury, North Carolina. They were romantically involved until 2011. On November 2, 2009, Ms. Wilcox gave

...