North Carolina Workers' Compensation Lawyers Blog

In North Carolina, employers or insurers who are responsible for Workers' Compensation payments have the right to hire a Rehabilitation Professional to help with a particular worker's case. Injured workers are required to cooperate with both the medical and vocational rehabilitation professionals who may be hired by their employers.

At the same time, injured workers have the right to request that their Rehabilitation Professional not be present during medical examinations. In addition, if you are an injured worker who requires medical treatment, while the Rehabilitation Professional assigned to your case may consult with your doctor, only the doctor can determine what tests or treatments you should get. If the Rehabilitation Professional discusses your case with your doctor, the RP must tell you about those discussions, and give you copies of any letters her or she sent to or received from your doctor. Finally, if the RP provides reports to your employer, you have the right to receive copies of those reports. You do have to ask the RP, specifically, for copies of any and all reports and communications.

If you believe that a Rehabilitation Professional who has been hired or assigned to work on your case is not focused primarily on your recovery, you should consult an experienced North Carolina workers' compensation attorney to discuss the possibility of requesting a different RP. In order to have an RP removed, you will have to demonstrate to the North Carolina Industrial Commission that you have valid reasons for your request.

Continue reading "Rehabilitation Professionals and North Carolina Workers' Compensation" »

According to media reports, an Augusta man died Thursday as he was returning to Aiken from his job as a painter. The man is reported to have been driving a truck owned by his employer. According to a passenger who had been in the truck with him, the driver began to choke. He then lost control of his vehicle, crashed into the guardrail on Interstate 20, and was partially ejected from the truck. He was pronounced dead at the scene. The passenger, who had been wearing a seatbelt, survived the crash.

The South Carolina workers' compensation system, like that in most states, does not cover employees injured while they are coming from or going to their job site. However, an exception to this rule applies if the employee, while traveling to or from work, was charged with a duty or task related to his employment. The question then becomes whether the worker had to perform work-related duties while traveling to or from work, and whether he or she was under the control of the employer during that trip. In at least one case, the Court of Appeals of South Carolina held that a claimant who was driving a company truck and had been asked by his employer to take another employee home was, in fact, covered under the workers' compensation system.

Other exceptions apply to the "coming and going" rule, as well. Any South Carolina worker who is injured while traveling to or from work would be well advised to consult an experienced South Carolina workers' compensation attorney as part of the process of filing a workers' compensation claim.

Continue reading "Worker Killed in Aiken County, South Carolina Accident While Returning from a Job" »

A recent article in Raleigh's News and Observer discusses a trend that is developing in North Carolina and elsewhere: companies that laid off workers during the past several years are now rehiring a growing number of them. However, they are generally rehiring those workers as contractors, rather than as regular employees.

While the workers are hoping to get permanent employee status after some time, in the meantime they do not receive benefits and are not covered under the companies' workers compensation policies.

If the workers are hired through a staffing company, such as Manpower, they may be eligible for workers' compensation benefits under the staffing company's coverage. However, some workers return to work as self-employed contractors; in such cases, the workers' compensation system would not protect them if they had the misfortune of suffering a work-related injury or illness.

According to the report in The News and Observer, some companies are limiting the duration of contractor employment to 18 months, because some federal courts have held that long-term contractors were similar to permanent employees, and eligible to full benefits.

If you suffer a work-related injury in North Carolina, and you are working as an independent contractor, you should contact an experienced North Carolina workers' compensation attorney to discuss the details of your situation. The mere fact that your employment contract describes you as an "independent contractor" is not enough to cement your status in the eyes of the law.

One danger inherent in the growing numbers of people employed as contractors is the potential weakening of the pact struck by the workers' compensation system between employers and employees. Workers' compensation systems are designed to ensure that workers get the help they need when they are injured or disabled, while the employers are shielded from potential findings of fault and all the costs associated with litigation.

Continue reading "Former Employees in North Carolina Rehired as Contractors" »

In an opinion filed in February, the Supreme Court of South Carolina held that South Carolina's worker's compensation system should cover the injuries suffered by a migrant worker when he slipped and broke his ankle in the living quarters provided, at no charge, by his employer. In finding so, the Court rejected the reasoning of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, which, in a similar case, had held that the worker's injuries should not be compensated because the worker was not required by contract to live on the premises provided by the employer. In that case, the North Carolina court had also held that, at the time when he was injured, the worker was not engaged in an activity that benefited the employer's business.

In Pierre v. Seaside Farms, Inc., the Supreme Court of South Carolina looked at the practical realities behind the terms of the written employment contract. The worker involved in the lawsuit had an employment agreement which said that his hours and days of employment were not set in advance, but dependent on the picking conditions in the field. The Court noted that the work site at issue was far from any potential residential rentals, that the worker was not paid enough to obtain other housing, and that the worker could be called in to work at any time, depending on the company's needs. In addition, the employer had testified that it saw the provision of free housing to its migrant workers as part of the cost of doing business. Thus, the Court determined that the nature of the job (rather than the written contract) did require the worker to live on the employer's premises.

Given this decision, when the nature of the work and the location of the work site make it necessary for an employee to live on the employer's property, the employee is likely to be covered under workers' compensation for injuries sustained while on those premises, as long as he or she is engaged in a "reasonable use" of the location.

Continue reading "South Carolina Workers' Compensation Protects Employee Injured While Living on Employer's Premises" »

In North Carolina, if a worker files a workers' compensation claim for benefits and then faces retaliatory acts by the employer for making that claim, the worker is protected by the Retaliatory Discrimination Employment Act (REDA). In order to bring a civil suit under that act, the worker must show three things: 1) that he or she had made a claim for or provided information related to a workers' compensation benefits; 2) that a retaliatory action was taken against him or her; and 3) that the retaliatory action was prompted by the worker's request for benefits.

A recent opinion by the Court of Appeals of North Carolina addressed the question of whether two particular acts constituted "retaliatory action." The plaintiff in that case alleged that her employer had not allowed her to be treated by a particular doctor of her choice, and that the employer had not allowed her to return to work, after her injury, in a different position than the one she had held before. The Court held that neither of those acts constituted "retaliatory actions."

While an employer's refusal to approve treatment by a particular medical provider is not considered a type of retaliation under REDA, employees may petition (or ask) the North Carolina Industrial Commission to approve treatment with a provider chosen by the employee. A North Carolina workers' compensation attorney would be able to assist workers through this petition process.

Consequences that would more typically be seen as retaliatory actions under REDA would be the termination of a worker's employment; suspension; unjustified relocation; reduction of benefits; or other actions that would negatively impact the conditions of the worker's employment.

Workers who believe that they have suffered a retaliatory action related to a workers' compensation claim in North Carolina should call the Employment Discrimination Bureau to discuss their situation and the steps they need to take in order to file a complaint form; the complaint must be filed within 180 days of the date of the retaliatory action.

Continue reading "Responding to Retaliation for Filing a Workers' Compensation Claim in North Carolina" »

A report released in April by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention addressed the number of occupational injuries among younger workers (defined as those between 15 and 24 years old) in the U.S. According to the report, among those younger workers, who account for 14% of the U.S. labor force, the rate of nonfatal injuries was twice as high as it was in workers older than 25. The report also notes that 49% of the nonfatal injuries to younger workers involved objects or equipment such as tools, machinery, or materials.

An "Editorial Note" that accompanies the report suggests that younger workers might benefit from more training, both in terms of job skills and in the recognition of job-related hazards. The editorial comments also suggest that younger workers, and in particular those who are in their first jobs, might be more reluctant to speak up when they do encounter hazards, and less knowledgeable about "their legal rights as workers."

As the writers of the note point out, employers have the primary responsibility to ensure workplace safety. And, although the report does not address this, the employers might also be in the best position to educate young workers about their legal rights--including their right to receive workers' compensation benefits for work-related injuries. Given the current economic downturn, many workers, especially those just starting those careers, might be reluctant to report some work-related injuries and might try to continue working even after being injured--potentially risking more severe injuries and a greater cost for treatment once they do seek medical help.

Given the goals of the Workers' Compensation system, the employers should do everything they can to educate young workers about their right to prompt compensation for medical bills related to work-related injuries, as well as to disability payments when those are warranted. In addition, younger workers injured in South Carolina should be made aware of the fact that they are protected by law against any actions by an employer that would constitute retaliation for an employee's pursuit of a legitimate workers' compensation claim.

Continue reading "Younger Workers In South Carolina and throughout the U.S. Face Greater Rate of Occupational Injuries" »

Most South Carolina employees who suffer injuries in the course of their employment--and arising out of their employment--are eligible for Workers' Compensation benefits. However, unless they've already been in this situation, most people aren't sure what workers' compensation programs have to offer.
The South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission lists 6 primary goals of workers' compensation programs. Among them are:

• to ensure that people who are injured in work-related accidents receive prompt payment for needed medical treatment, as well as prompt payment of a reasonable amount of money to replace their wages if they are unable to return to work for some time (if litigation was the only way to obtain compensation, the workers might have to wait for years before getting the opportunity to even argue for payment);


• to reduce all the various costs and delays associated with trials and litigation in general;


• to promote workplace safety--which, under the workers' compensation system, is in the best interest of both employers and employees.

In exchange for the assurance of timely payments, injured workers face certain limitations: for example, under workers' compensation rules, they cannot recover financial compensation for pain and suffering. In addition, the law imposes various limitations on the amount of money that workers can receive in disability payments.

However, not every accident falls neatly within the parameters established by laws, regulations, and prior cases. In some situations, for example, an employer may argue that at the time of the accident the employee was "coming to or going from" the place of employment, rather than acting "in the course of employment"--in which case the employee would not be covered by workers' compensation. Or an employer may deny that an injury arose out of activities done on the employer's behalf. When a work-related injury involves such gray areas, the promise of prompt and certain payment for injuries is replaced by a process that may take more time, more investigation and negotiation, as well as contested hearings, if necessary.

Continue reading "Benefits and Limitations of Workers' Compensation" »

Under North Carolina law, most employees are covered by the Workers' Compensation system (except for those working for employers who regularly employ fewer than three employees in one business, or, in the case of agricultural employers, fewer than 10 non-seasonal full-time employees). However, independent contractors are not eligible to receive workers' compensation benefits, and neither are "casual" employees, according to the Workers' Compensation Act. Do you know whether you qualify as an employee or an independent contractor, or whether you are a "casual" employee?

If you have suffered a work-related injury, or if you feel that your work environment has placed you at an increased risk of getting a work-related illness and has in fact caused you to develop that disease, you should contact an experienced North Carolina workers' compensation attorney for a detailed evaluation of your case. Don't jump to the conclusion that you are not an "official" employee. You should discuss your case with an attorney even if you have signed a contract that describes you as an "independent contractor." What determines your status is not the terminology of the agreement, but the real conditions of the employment relationship that existed between you and your employer at the time when the injury occurred. If an employer exercised a sufficient degree of control over the way in which you did your job, you may not be an independent contractor. If the employer provided you with the tools required for your work, set your hours, trained you, or required you to work at the employer's facilities, you may in fact be considered an employee for workers' compensation purposes.

You might also think that you are not an "official" employee because you don't have a written contract with your employer. However, oral employment contracts, if properly proven, are as effective as written ones when it comes to workers' compensation rights. If you had an oral agreement with your employer, consider any actions taken by the employer that might prove the terms of that agreement, and discuss your situation with an attorney.

Continue reading "Are You Covered by North Carolina's Workers' Compensation System?" »

Many of us have heard or read stories about people who filed fraudulent Workers' Compensation claims in North Carolina when they weren't as seriously injured as they'd claimed, or when their injuries were unrelated to their jobs. However, in its "Scam Alerts" coverage, the Coalition Against Insurance Fraud also lists several types of Workers' Compensation fraud perpetrated by employers, rather than employees.

While most employers find it in their best interest to provide sufficient workers' compensation coverage and take care of their employees, some resort to shady schemes in which they classify workers as having far safer jobs than they really do; classify employees as independent contractors (who would not affect a company's workers' compensation premium); or form several smaller companies, instead of a single larger one, so that none of companies would have the minimum number of employees that would trigger the requirement to provide workers' compensation. Occasionally, employers also try to control or manipulate the medical providers to whom they direct their employees when they are injured on the job.

According to the Coalition Against Insurance Fraud, such premium scams are much larger in scope than most fake-injury ones; they are also more complex and more hidden. They can last for years, impacting numerous workers' lives and depriving truly injured workers of hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Continue reading "Premium Scams and Their Effect on the Workers' Compensation System" »

In North Carolina, employers or insurers who are paying compensation related to a workers' compensation claim are allowed to submit a questionnaire to medical providers who are treating or have treated the employee receiving compensation. The regulations also allow providers to answer the workers' compensation questionnaire without asking the patient for authorization.

Medical providers are not required to answer all of the questions on the form; they have to answer only the particular questions checked off by the employer, and only when they feel that they have enough information to form an opinion about the particular subject of the question.

One of the questions on the questionnaire asks the medical provider to provide an opinion about the relationship between the job duties or the on-the-job incident that led to the compensation claim (as described by the patient) and the injuries or condition for which the worker is receiving treatment. The multiple-choice answers to that question include one stating that the job duties or the incident have "no relation" to the patient's injury, as well as one stating that the duties or incident caused (or contributed to) the worker's injury.

The provider's answer to that question is extremely important to the ultimate determination of whether or not the injured worker has a valid workers' compensation claim. It is therefore important for injured workers to know that a medical provider who answers such a questionnaire has to provide the answers simultaneously both to the party requesting the information and to the patient/employee treated by the provider.

Continue reading "Medical Status Questionnaires in North Carolina Workers' Compensation System" »

In November 2003, an employee of the Sears Roebuck store in Greensboro, North Carolina was injured while on the job. According to a recent opinion of the Court of Appeals of North Carolina, the employee suffered injuries to his wrist, shoulder, ankle, and back, when a dryer "fell apart in his hands." In July 2008, a Deputy Commissioner of the North Carolina Industrial Commission determined that the injured employee should receive compensation for expenses related to the injuries he had suffered, as well as any "future necessary medical compensation," as long as that compensation was reasonably related to the initial claim.

The worker then began physical therapy, as required by his doctors. During that physical therapy, he suffered a torn meniscus in his knee. A doctor testified that the injury to the knee was caused by the physical therapy. As a result, the Court of Appeals of North Carolina, upholding a decision by the full Industrial Commission, determined that the worker's knee injury was a "direct and natural consequence" of the initial injury that he had suffered on the job. Thus, the employee in this case will be compensated for the costs associated with his knee injury as well.

If you are seeking workers' compensation benefits in North Carolina, it is important to realize that you may be entitled to compensation for injuries beyond those that were specified at the time of the injury, or when you first filed a claim. If your initial injuries led to other conditions that required you to seek medical treatment, you should consult an experienced workers' compensation attorney to discuss your options.

Continue reading "Recent North Carolina Court Decision Affirms Extended Workers' Compensation Benefits" »

A recent decision by the Court of Appeals of South Carolina addressed the Workers' Compensation payments granted on the basis of an oral employment contract between a father and his son. The son, who had been living in Minnesota, agreed to move back to South Carolina and work for his father's company in exchange for $30,000 a year, a tank of gas per week, and an arrangement that allowed him to live rent-free in an house owned by his family members. While in the course of his employment, and within the scope of that employment, the son was injured. One question in the case concerned the calculation of the average weekly wage of the employee/son, since the workers' compensation benefits granted to the son would be calculated on the basis of the amount of that average weekly wage.

In its decision, the Court of Appeals agreed with the Workers' Compensation Commissioner and the Appellate Panel of South Carolina's Workers' Compensation Commission, both of whom had held that the fair rental value of the house specified in the oral contract should be included as part of the average weekly wage payable to the employee/son. According to the Court, the testimony presented at the Workers' Compensation hearing showed that the rent-free living arrangement had been one of the terms of the oral contract.

The South Carolina Code includes in the definition of "average weekly wage" any "allowances" (or benefits) that are specified as part of an employment contract and are provided "in lieu of wages." In other words, if an employee agrees to take a particular wage only if supplemented by a particular benefit, the value of that benefit would be considered part of the employee's average weekly wage for the purposes of determining the amount of workers' compensation payments.

In this case, the company and its insurance carrier argued that the rent-free living arrangement was merely a gift from the parents to the son; however, the employee was able to prove that the benefit had been a specified part of the oral contract.

Continue reading "South Carolina Court Approves Workers' Compensation Payments Based on an Oral Agreement" »

The Workers' Compensation Research Institute has released a study showing that the cost of prescription drugs prescribed for injured workers in North Carolina was 14% higher (per workers' compensation system claim) than it was in most of the sixteen states evaluated in the study. Workers who were prescribed two particular muscle relaxants following on-the-job injuries in North Carolina were likely to receive a higher number of pills, on average, than workers prescribed the same drugs in other states. In addition, the cost of all drugs prescribed was significantly higher when doctors were not only prescribing but also distributing the drugs (as opposed to the drugs being dispensed by a pharmacy).

In addition, at its annual conference on the effects of the economy overall on Workers' Compensation programs, the Workers Compensation Research Institute reported that the costs of claims are higher when injured workers don't receive prompt treatment for their injuries, or in cases where the processing and payments of claims take a long time.

Continue reading "North Carolina Claims Evaluated by Workers' Compensation Research Institute" »