Claim Closure with Brian Groesser

The Supremes came out with a published decision - a rare treat in North Carolina workers' compensation cases. Although this was more of a procedural rebuke of the Court of Appeals, there is a decent discussion of burdens of proof when it comes to a notice defense under N.C. Gen. Stat. 97-22. Think you are safe when an employee notifies you of an accident and says she's fine, then opts to treat on her own without telling you to the point of needing fusion surgery over a year later? Think again.

Today I do a deep dive into an unpublished opinion on the Parsons Presumption. I discuss the presumption, but more importantly I point out how attorneys and doctors engage in depositions, the testimony one needs to rebut the presumption, handling pre-existing injuries and how the Commission and Court of Appeals deals with testimony when they render their opinions. This episode is a must-listen in terms of "inside baseball" as to the litigation process playing out.

A special treat of three published Court of Appeals cases in one week. Baker discusses the requirement for a Pleasant case to survive summary judgment in a civil proceeding. Brewer discusses the burden when it comes to the Parsons presumption. And Marlow allowed a civil case to survive summary judgment with a finding that the accident did not arise out of the employment - despite the employer already accepting the accident as compensable on a Form 60. Listen in to learn how these cases can impact your claim handling.

12 hours after the last episode published, the Court of Appeals came out with its revised decision in Sturdivant. The verdict? The 500-week cap on indemnity benefits is gone. I will discuss this decision and take a deep dive into what is actually left of the alleged pro-employer amendments that were made to the Act in 2011. I will also discuss what a veto-proof General Assembly can do to immediately address the problems that have arisen since those amendments were enacted 12 years ago.

This one has been 12 years in the making. Ever since the Act was changed in 2011 and a 500-week cap installed regarding entitlement to indemnity benefits, employers and employees have been waiting for the Court of Appeals to decide what it actually takes to have benefits extended beyond 500 weeks. And now we have our answer. Or do we? The Court of Appeals actually vacated its own decision and will reassess after essentially eliminating the 500-week cap by its original decision. We will discuss this case along with a Woodson analysis of what it takes for an employer to be sued in civil court and not have the exclusive remedy protection typically afforded under the Act.