Court of Appeals Upholds Injured Employee's Award
Posted by
Robin MartinekApril 11, 2007 9:20 AMIn a recent decision, the North Carolina Court of Appeals upheld an injured workers' award of total disability despite protests by his employer that he had a previous disabling injury.
Mr. Raymond M. Ard was employed by Owens-Illinois as a stock handler and was consistently required to move forty-pound boxes as part of his job duties. On May 11, 2001, Mr. Ard sought treatment for back pain that had developed gradually over the course of his work and due to the repeated lifting required of his work. Then on July 14, 2001, Mr. Ard suffered a sharp pain in his lower back while working at his job. On December 20, 2001, while working, Mr. Ard suffered an identical injury. On May 22, 2002, Mr. Ard again suffered a back injury while lifting boxes at work.
After his treatment for these injuries, Mr. Ard's physician placed numerous restrictions on his ability to work. Since Owens-Illinois did not have suitable employment available, Mr. Ard sought work elsewhere with no luck.
The Full Commission found that "[p]laintiff's efforts to find suitable employment have been reasonable," and concluded that plaintiff was "unable to find suitable employment within his medical restrictions and due to his educational and vocational limitations."In its order and award, the Full Commission found that "[p]laintiff suffered an injury arising out of and in the course of his employment on July 14, 2001, December 23, 2001 and May 22, 2002, as a direct result of a specific traumatic incident of the work assigned by Defendant-Employer."
Based on its findings, the Full Commission ordered that the employer pay Mr. Ard for total disability.
Mr. Ard's employer argued that Mr. Ard did not incur any disabling injury from the 2001 accidents. However, the Court found competent evidence to support the Full Commissions decision.
Mr. Ard's employer next argued that Mr. Ard should not have been awarded for compensation for the 2002 accident, because he was disabled by a previously existing condition. Again the Court disagreed and explained the error in the employer's reasoning as such:
Our Supreme Court, in Morrison, stated that:
[w]hen a pre-existing, nondisabling, non-job- related condition is aggravated or accelerated by an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of employment . . . so that disability results, then the employer must compensate the employee for the entire resulting disability even though it would not have disabled a normal person to that extent.
From this single sentence, defendants mistakenly conclude that if a pre-existing condition is aggravated during employment, leading to disability, the disability can only be compensable if the pre-existing condition was not disabling. However, when we view this single sentence, highlighted by defendants in their brief, the language clearly states that the pre-existing condition must be both nondisabling and non-job related to be compensable. The Morrison court placed emphasis on both modifiers, and we read "nondisabling" and "non-job-related" together, as they were written. Thus, the alleged "rule" defendants cite from Morrison, regardless of its validity, does not apply in this case because plaintiff's previous back injury was job-related. Throughout its text, Morrison repeatedly recites the well-settled law that "an employer takes the employee as he finds her with all her pre-existing infirmities and weaknesses." Id. If these infirmities or weaknesses are derived from previously compensable disabilities, the employee is not precluded from suffering a subsequent compensable disability.
This case clearly upholds that long-standing rule in North Carolina workers' compensation law that prior disabilities aggravated by work-related injuries are compensable.