Opinion

Carey v. Norment Security Industries

  • 194 N.C. App. 97
  • 669 S.E.2d 1
  • 2008 N.C. App. LEXIS 2156
Court
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
Filed
Dec 2, 2008
Status
Published
Author
Wynn
On the bench
Bryant, Jackson, Wynn
Cited by
3 cases

holding defendant's failure to argue to Commission whether defendant was entitled to credit for short-term disability benefits already paid to plaintiff resulted in waiver of the issue

How later courts described this case

  • holding defendant's failure to argue to Commission whether defendant was entitled to credit for short-term disability benefits already paid to plaintiff resulted in waiver of the issue

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

WYNN, Judge,

concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I disagree with that part of the majority’s decision that remands this matter because “the Commission failed to make findings of fact as to what sporadic dates plaintiff was out of work due to medical treatment prior to 15 February 2005.” In my view, the Commission’s Opinion and Award contains adequate findings of fact regarding the days the plaintiff missed because of medical treatment.

The Commission’s Opinion and Award contains the following relevant findings of fact:

*108 5. Plaintiff was initially treated on May 10, 2004 . . .

6. On June 10, 2004, Plaintiff began treating with Dr. Cara Siegel. . .

10. On October 28, 2004 an MRI of plaintiffs lumbar spine showed a disc bulge and herniation. On December 14, 2004, plaintiff was treated by Dr. James Fulghum ...

11. On December 17, 2004, plaintiff was seen by Dr. Duncan with primary complaints of thoracic and low back pain. Plaintiff underwent a series of prolotherapy injections that were administered on January 5, January 19, February 2, and February 16, 2005.

Furthermore, the Commission ordered the parties “to confer and stipulate based upon the payroll and medical records as to the days or partial days for which plaintiff is due compensation.” These findings of fact in the Commission’s Opinion are sufficient to determine what sporadic dates plaintiff was out of work due to medical treatment prior to 15 February 2005. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent from the portion of the majority’s opinion that orders a remand.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.