concluding that employee’s testimony that “the pain in his lower back and left leg is so severe that, not only is he unable to work in any employment, he is often unable to undertake even simple chores, such as sweeping, for more than thirty minutes” was competent evidence supporting Commission’s finding of disability under Russell’s first prong
How later courts described this case
- concluding that employee’s testimony that “the pain in his lower back and left leg is so severe that, not only is he unable to work in any employment, he is often unable to undertake even simple chores, such as sweeping, for more than thirty minutes” was competent evidence supporting Commission’s finding of disability under Russell’s first prong
- holding that even if defendants “clearly established that plaintiff had reached [maximum medical improvement] prior to the hearing, and that, therefore, the evidence does not support the Commission’s finding that plaintiff had not reached [maximum medical improvement] as of the hearing, we find such error to be immaterial at this time”
- “[T]he concept of MMI does not have any direct bearing upon an employee’s right to continue to receive temporary disability benefits once the employee has established a loss of wage-earning capacity pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-29 or § 97-30.”
- a physician's testimony that the plaintiff, who had a history of back injuries, continued to suffer from pain due to the back injury at issue and the plaintiff's credible testimony that the severe back pain did not permit him to work supported the Commission's conclusion of total disability
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
BRYANT, Judge,
dissenting in part.
I dissent from the portion of the majority opinion relating to whether the concept of MMI is material to Issue # 3. That issue on appeal is whether, once the employee has established loss of wage earning capacity pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-29 or N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-30 , the employee may continue to receive temporary total disability after having reached maximum medical improvement. In two prior decisions of this Court, we addressed this issue. In Anderson v. Gulistan Carpet, Inc., 144 N.C. App. 661 , 550 S.E.2d 237 (2001), a panel of this Court answered that issue, “no”; however, in another opinion filed on the same day as Anderson , a different panel in Russos v. Wheaton Industries, 145 N.C. App. 164 , 551 S.E.2d 456 , disc. review denied, 355 N.C. 214 , 560 S.E.2d 135 (2001) answered, “yes”. No appeal was taken by the parties from the Anderson decision; and, our Supreme Court declined to grant discretionary review of the Russos decision.
Manifestly, a conflict of panels on this Court requires a decision from our Supreme Court. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-30(2). Accordingly, I dissent from the majority decision for the reasons stated in Anderson and thereby afford the defendants the opportunity to appeal this issue directly to the Supreme Court to obtain a definitive opinion.