Richards v. Harris Teeter ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •                     IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA
    2022-NCCOA-595
    No. COA21-804
    Filed 6 September 2022
    North Carolina Industrial Commission, I.C. No. 19-034789
    CLARENCE RICHARDS, Employee, Plaintiff,
    v.
    HARRIS TEETER, INC., Employer, SELF-INSURED (SEDGWICK CLAIMS
    MANAGEMENT SERVICES, Third-Party Administrator), Defendants.
    Appeal by defendants from opinion and award entered 26 August 2021 by the
    North Carolina Industrial Commission. Heard in the Court of Appeals 10 August
    2022.
    Hunter & Everage, by S. Camille Payton, for plaintiff-appellee.
    Pope Aylward Sweeney & Santaniello, LLP, by Alexander J. Elmes and
    Edward A. Sweeney, for defendants-appellants.
    ZACHARY, Judge.
    ¶1           Defendants Harris Teeter, Inc., (“Defendant”) and Sedgwick Claims
    Management Services (collectively, “Defendants”) appeal from an Opinion and Award
    entered by the North Carolina Industrial Commission in which the Full Commission
    concluded that the Seagraves test did not apply in this case. After careful review, we
    affirm.
    I.     Background
    ¶2           Plaintiff Clarence Richards began working as a truck driver for Defendant in
    RICHARDS V. HARRIS TEETER, INC.
    2022-NCCOA-595
    Opinion of the Court
    2016. On 3 August 2019, Plaintiff was injured in a single-vehicle accident on
    Interstate 85 when his truck “ran off the road returning from Virginia.” Vance County
    EMS transported Plaintiff to Maria Parham Health’s emergency department. The
    EMS record reports that Plaintiff “said he didn’t know he was listening to the radio
    and then the accident . . . says he may have just drifted thinking about something.”
    The hospital record states that Plaintiff “lost control of his vehicle this morning just
    after taking a sip of Gatorade and wound up wrecking into a grassy field.”
    ¶3         Plaintiff’s physician wrote Plaintiff out of work while he received medical
    treatment. On 13 August 2019, Plaintiff filed a Form 18 Notice of Accident to
    Employer and Claim of Employee, Representative, or Dependent with the Industrial
    Commission. On 30 August 2019, Defendants filed a Form 63 Notice of Payment of
    Compensation     Without    Prejudice,   accepting        Plaintiff’s   claim   for   workers’
    compensation benefits for a “low back” injury as a result of the 3 August accident.
    Defendants began paying indemnity benefits and medical compensation to Plaintiff,
    and did not contest the compensability of Plaintiff’s claim within the statutory
    deadline, thereby accepting the compensability of his “low back” injury. See 
    N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-18
    (d) (2021).
    ¶4         Shortly after the accident, Defendant terminated Plaintiff’s employment,
    effective 29 August 2019. Brian Barnhardt, a workers’ compensation claims manager
    for Defendant, testified before the Deputy Commissioner that Defendant’s “review
    RICHARDS V. HARRIS TEETER, INC.
    2022-NCCOA-595
    Opinion of the Court
    committee” determined that Plaintiff’s “accident was preventable.” Defendant’s
    personnel records indicate that Plaintiff was terminated for a “Violation of
    Established Safety Procedures”—namely, that Defendant’s camera in the cab of the
    truck showed that Plaintiff closed his eyes for approximately seven to ten seconds,
    which led to the single-vehicle accident—and that therefore Plaintiff was “Not
    Eligible for Rehire.”
    ¶5         Barnhardt also testified regarding Defendant’s “mandatory return-to-work
    program for a workers’ comp injury[,]” and the availability of “numerous temporary
    positions an associate can do if they have restrictions.” However, Barnhart testified
    that because Plaintiff was “not eligible for rehire[,]” Defendant would not offer
    Plaintiff any job, including positions “that [Defendant] claim[ed] [Plaintiff] could do.”
    Defendant also declined to provide “any vocational rehabilitative services to assist
    Plaintiff in locating suitable employment.”
    ¶6         Meanwhile, Plaintiff was released to return to “sedentary work only” on 15
    August 2019, but he was prohibited from driving a truck professionally “due to
    functional limitations.” From 23 September 2019 through 3 February 2020, Plaintiff
    received treatment for his lower back and right knee from Dr. Ronald Gioffre, a board-
    certified orthopedic surgeon. Plaintiff also attended physical therapy, which Dr.
    Gioffre reported “seem[ed] to be helping greatly[,]” although Dr. Gioffre noted that
    Plaintiff “still cannot stand more than thirty minutes and sit about 1 hour, before he
    RICHARDS V. HARRIS TEETER, INC.
    2022-NCCOA-595
    Opinion of the Court
    starts to have pain.”
    ¶7         Later, in his deposition, Dr. Gioffre elaborated on his decision regarding
    Plaintiff’s work restrictions:
    So I basically didn’t feel in the few times that I saw him
    that even if he had a job that I would have let him go back
    to work with his back and hip, because I couldn’t see how
    he could possibly get up – step up into one of those trucks
    with the hip the way it was, and his back was an issue.
    ....
    I know what he had to do as a truck driver, and I said, No,
    you can’t go back to work. I didn’t know what else they
    wanted me to do with restrictions. If they would have had
    a sedentary type job, I’d have sent him back. There was no
    reason he couldn’t do sedentary work.
    When presented with Defendant’s job descriptions for two positions—Cashier and
    Self-Checkout Cashier (also referred to as a “U-Scan Cashier”)—Dr. Gioffre testified
    that he thought Plaintiff would “have a hard time all day doing [the Cashier] work
    eight hours a day”; nonetheless, it was his opinion that Plaintiff would be able to
    perform the work of a U-Scan Cashier if he were permitted to sit periodically.
    ¶8         After being released from Dr. Gioffre’s care on 3 February 2020, Plaintiff
    sought employment through various job search websites, across various industries.
    Plaintiff testified before the Deputy Commissioner that he looked for jobs that do not
    require constant sitting or standing, consistent with his restrictions, but that he had
    not received any replies from prospective employers. With regard to his resume,
    RICHARDS V. HARRIS TEETER, INC.
    2022-NCCOA-595
    Opinion of the Court
    Plaintiff testified that he was 64 years old at the time of the hearing before the Deputy
    Commissioner, with three years of college education. He was employed for 12 years
    as a corrections officer, and for 27 years as a truck driver; he has never worked in an
    office and is “computer illiterate.”
    ¶9           On 30 April 2020, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a Form 33 Request that Claim be
    Assigned for Hearing, alleging that “Defendants have failed and refused to pay past
    due [temporary total disability] benefit underpayment.” On 15 June 2020,
    Defendants filed a Form 33R Response to Request that Claim be Assigned for
    Hearing, replying, inter alia, that “Plaintiff has received all benefits to which he is
    entitled.” The matter came on for hearing before the Deputy Commissioner on 8 July
    2020, and by Opinion and Award entered 12 January 2021, the Deputy Commissioner
    ordered that Defendants pay temporary total disability “until Plaintiff returns to
    work, until further order of the Industrial Commission, or until compensation is
    otherwise legally terminated.”
    ¶ 10         Defendants timely filed notice of appeal to the Full Commission of the North
    Carolina Industrial Commission, which heard this matter on 9 June 2021. By Opinion
    and Award entered 26 August 2021, the Full Commission awarded Plaintiff the same
    payment of temporary total disability and attorneys’ fees, and added that “[s]ubject
    to the provisions of 
    N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-25.1
    , Defendant shall pay medical expenses
    incurred or to be incurred as a result of Plaintiff's admittedly compensable injury as
    RICHARDS V. HARRIS TEETER, INC.
    2022-NCCOA-595
    Opinion of the Court
    may reasonably be required to effect a cure, provide relief, or lessen the period of
    disability.”
    ¶ 11          Defendants timely filed notice of appeal to this Court.
    II.     Discussion
    ¶ 12          On appeal, Defendants first argue that the Full Commission erred by failing
    to find that Plaintiff constructively refused suitable employment, and by failing to
    apply the test for constructive refusal of suitable employment first articulated by this
    Court in Seagraves v. Austin Co. of Greensboro, 
    123 N.C. App. 228
    , 
    472 S.E.2d 399
    (1996), and subsequently adopted by our Supreme Court in McRae v. Toastmaster,
    Inc., 
    358 N.C. 488
    , 
    597 S.E.2d 695
     (2004). Assuming application of the Seagraves test,
    Defendants also argue that the Full Commission erred by failing to find that
    Defendants had not shown that Plaintiff’s termination was unrelated to his
    compensable injury, and by concluding that Plaintiff remains disabled or that he
    conducted a reasonable job search.
    A. Standard of Review
    ¶ 13          “Appellate review of an award from the Industrial Commission is generally
    limited to two issues: (i) whether the findings of fact are supported by competent
    evidence, and (ii) whether the conclusions of law are justified by the findings of fact.”
    Chambers v. Transit Mgmt., 
    360 N.C. 609
    , 611, 
    636 S.E.2d 553
    , 555 (2006), reh’g
    denied, 
    361 N.C. 227
    , 
    641 S.E.2d 801
     (2007). Because the Commission “is the sole
    RICHARDS V. HARRIS TEETER, INC.
    2022-NCCOA-595
    Opinion of the Court
    judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence,” its “findings of fact are conclusive
    on appeal if supported by competent evidence[.]” Blackwell v. N.C. Dep’t of Pub.
    Instruction, 2022-NCCOA-123, ¶ 5 (citations omitted).
    ¶ 14         “Findings not supported by competent evidence are not conclusive and will be
    set aside on appeal. But findings supported by competent evidence are conclusive,
    even when there is evidence to support contrary findings.” Johnson v. Covil Corp.,
    
    212 N.C. App. 407
    , 408–09, 
    711 S.E.2d 500
    , 502 (2011) (citations and internal
    quotation marks omitted). “Unchallenged findings of fact are presumed to be
    supported by competent evidence and are binding on appeal.” Fields v. H&E Equip.
    Servs., LLC, 
    240 N.C. App. 483
    , 485–86, 
    771 S.E.2d 791
    , 793–94 (2015) (citation
    omitted).
    ¶ 15         The Commission’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. Blackwell, 2022-
    NCCOA-123, ¶ 5. Under de novo review, this Court “considers the matter anew and
    freely substitutes its own judgment for that of the lower tribunal.” Fields, 240 N.C.
    App. at 486, 771 S.E.2d at 793–94 (citation omitted).
    B. Constructive Refusal of Suitable Employment
    ¶ 16         The parties stipulated that “Plaintiff was injured during the scope of his
    employment” with Defendant. The initial compensability of Plaintiff’s lower back
    injury resulting from the accident is also undisputed. Rather, this appeal concerns
    whether Plaintiff constructively refused suitable employment where Defendant
    RICHARDS V. HARRIS TEETER, INC.
    2022-NCCOA-595
    Opinion of the Court
    deemed him ineligible for participation in Defendant’s “return-to-work” program.
    ¶ 17         Before the Full Commission, Defendants argued that “Plaintiff constructively
    refused suitable employment because he was terminated for cause, and that but for
    the termination for cause, Plaintiff would have remained employed at his preinjury
    wages because Defendant would have accommodated Plaintiff’s post-injury
    restrictions.” On appeal, Defendants argue that the Full Commission erred by failing
    to extend the Seagraves test for constructive refusal of suitable employment. We
    disagree.
    ¶ 18          Under our Workers’ Compensation Act, “[i]f an injured employee refuses
    suitable employment as defined by G.S. 97-2(22), the employee shall not be entitled
    to any compensation at any time during the continuance of such refusal, unless in the
    opinion of the Industrial Commission such refusal was justified.” 
    N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97
    -
    32. “In Seagraves, the Court of Appeals examined the question of whether an
    employee can be deemed to have refused suitable employment, thereby precluding
    injury-related benefits, if she is terminated for misconduct that is unrelated to her
    workplace injuries.” McRae, 
    358 N.C. at 493
    , 
    597 S.E.2d at 698
    .
    In lieu of an employee’s termination for misconduct serving
    as an automatic bar to benefits, the court in Seagraves
    adopted a test that measures whether the employee’s loss
    of earning capacity is attributable to the wrongful act that
    caused the employee’s termination from employment, in
    which case benefits would be barred, or whether such loss
    of earning capacity is due to the employee’s work-related
    RICHARDS V. HARRIS TEETER, INC.
    2022-NCCOA-595
    Opinion of the Court
    disability, in which case the employee would be entitled to
    benefits intended for such disability.
    
    Id. at 493
    , 
    597 S.E.2d at 699
    .
    ¶ 19         The McRae Court adopted the Seagraves test: “to bar payment of benefits, an
    employer must demonstrate initially that: (1) the employee was terminated for
    misconduct; (2) the same misconduct would have resulted in the termination of a
    nondisabled employee; and (3) the termination was unrelated to the employee’s
    compensable injury.” 
    Id.
     “An employer’s successful demonstration of such evidence is
    deemed to constitute a constructive refusal by the employee to perform suitable work
    . . . .” 
    Id. at 493
    , 
    597 S.E.2d at 699
     (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
    The employee’s constructive refusal “would bar benefits for lost earnings, unless the
    employee is then able to show that his or her inability to find or hold other
    employment at a wage comparable to that earned prior to the injury is due to the
    work-related disability.” 
    Id.
     at 493–94, 
    597 S.E.2d at 699
     (citation and internal
    quotation marks omitted).
    ¶ 20         Further, our Supreme Court reiterated that, under the Seagraves test, the
    employer bears the burden “to show, by the greater weight of the evidence, that a
    plaintiff’s termination was unrelated to his or her work-related injuries; the burden
    is not on a plaintiff to show that the termination was so related.” 
    Id. at 499
    , 
    597 S.E.2d at 702
    .
    RICHARDS V. HARRIS TEETER, INC.
    2022-NCCOA-595
    Opinion of the Court
    ¶ 21         Importantly for the present case, the Full Commission noted in its Opinion and
    Award that the injured employee in Seagraves “had been provided light-duty,
    rehabilitative employment after contracting a compensable occupational disease[,]”
    see Seagraves, 123 N.C. App. at 229, 472 S.E.2d at 398, while the injured employee
    in McRae “was terminated for inadvertent errors she committed while performing a
    job to which she was reassigned subsequent to undergoing surgery for a compensable
    occupational disease[,]” see McRae, 
    358 N.C. at 491
    , 
    597 S.E.2d at
    697–98. That the
    injured employees in Seagraves and McRae were terminated from rehabilitative
    employment was a significant factor to the Full Commission, which observed that
    Plaintiff “was not terminated from rehabilitative employment for misconduct
    unrelated to his admittedly compensable injury. Rather, Plaintiff in this case was
    terminated from his regular job for his role in the very accident that caused his
    admittedly compensable injury.” Accordingly, the Full Commission concluded that
    “[t]he operative facts in the case before us are substantially different than those in
    Seagraves and McRae” and therefore, “[g]iven these fundamental factual differences,
    the Seagraves test is not applicable in this case.”
    ¶ 22         Defendants argue that the Full Commission erred by distinguishing the case
    at bar from Seagraves and McRae on the basis of those injured employees’
    termination from rehabilitative employment, asserting that “[i]t is unclear why the
    Commission believes the temporal factor is required in the analysis of earning
    RICHARDS V. HARRIS TEETER, INC.
    2022-NCCOA-595
    Opinion of the Court
    capacity and disability.” Instead, Defendants contend that “[t]he fact that . . .
    Plaintiff’s misconduct resulted in his termination for cause deprived . . . Defendant
    the opportunity to return him to suitable employment[.]” According to Defendant, it
    “has a job for . . . Plaintiff but for the fact he was terminated for unsafe driving when
    he fell asleep and drove his truck off the road[,]” an undisputed violation of
    Defendant’s established safety protocols. Because it “has a job approved by the
    authorized treating physician which would have been available to . . . Plaintiff, but
    for his termination, the fact that termination did not occur during rehabilitative
    employment appears irrelevant.” We cannot agree.
    ¶ 23         In seeking to apply the Seagraves test to cases such as this—in which the
    injured employee was terminated for causing the accident that resulted in his injury
    and so, pursuant to the employer’s policies, has not and avowedly will not be offered
    suitable employment—Defendants essentially ask this Court to impose a for-cause
    bar to recovery of workers’ compensation benefits when the employee is unable to find
    suitable employment elsewhere. Defendants’ position is fundamentally incompatible
    with the well-established principles and purposes of the workers’ compensation
    system, which deliberately eliminates negligence from its calculus in all but certain
    narrowly defined instances.
    ¶ 24         The Workers’ Compensation Act has been carefully calibrated to balance the
    needs of compensably injured employees with the potential risks posed to employers.
    RICHARDS V. HARRIS TEETER, INC.
    2022-NCCOA-595
    Opinion of the Court
    “The social policy behind the Workers’ Compensation Act is twofold. First, the Act
    provides employees swift and certain compensation for the loss of earning capacity
    from accident or occupational disease arising in the course of employment. Second,
    the Act insures limited liability for employers.” Frost v. Salter Path Fire & Rescue,
    
    361 N.C. 181
    , 184, 
    639 S.E.2d 429
    , 432 (2007) (citation omitted).
    ¶ 25         As part of this mutually beneficial exchange, our Supreme Court has long
    recognized that under the Workers’ Compensation Act “not even gross negligence is
    a defense to a compensation claim. Only intoxication or injury intentionally inflicted
    will defeat a claim.” Hartley v. N.C. Prison Dep’t, 
    258 N.C. 287
    , 289, 
    128 S.E.2d 598
    ,
    600 (1962). Since Hartley was decided, only the unauthorized use of controlled
    substances has been added to this limited list of exceptions. See 
    N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97
    -
    12 (providing that an employee forfeits compensation in the event of “intoxication,”
    “being under the influence of any controlled substance” not properly prescribed, or
    “willful intention to injure or kill himself or another”). Therefore, an “employee’s
    violation of a safety rule does not of itself constitute a bar to recovery of compensation
    where it may be determined that his injury arose in the course of the employment.”
    Spratt v. Duke Power Co., 
    65 N.C. App. 457
    , 466, 
    310 S.E.2d 38
    , 44 (1983).
    ¶ 26         In the instant case, Defendants clarify that they do not argue on appeal that
    fault has any place in the compensability determination, and they do not dispute that
    Plaintiff’s injury was compensable. Nevertheless, Defendants argue that fault does
    RICHARDS V. HARRIS TEETER, INC.
    2022-NCCOA-595
    Opinion of the Court
    have a place—or at least, it should—in the workers’ compensation system, when it
    comes to determining when an employer may subsequently terminate workers’
    compensation benefits.
    ¶ 27         Our Supreme Court considered similar concerns when it first adopted the
    Seagraves test in McRae: “We . . . recognize that the current benefit scheme faces the
    potential for abuse by employees. If injury-related benefits continued without regard
    to an employee’s misconduct, injured employees conceivably could commit misconduct
    in order to be terminated without suffering the appropriate financial consequences.”
    
    358 N.C. at 495
    , 
    597 S.E.2d at 700
    . Yet the McRae Court contrasted that concern with
    its opposite: “[A]ny rule that would allow employers to evade benefit payments simply
    because the recipient-employee was terminated for misconduct could be open to
    abuse. Such a rule could give employers an incentive to find circumstances that would
    constitute misconduct by employees who were previously injured on the job.” 
    Id.
     In
    the end, our Supreme Court concluded that the Seagraves test “is an appropriate
    means to decide cases of this nature” because it “is intended to weigh the actions and
    interests of employer and employee alike. Ultimately, the Seagraves rule aims to
    provide a means by which the Industrial Commission can determine if the
    circumstances surrounding a termination warrant preclusion or discontinuation of
    injury-related benefits.” 
    Id.
    ¶ 28         We thus are bound to reject Defendants’ argument, and hold that the Full
    RICHARDS V. HARRIS TEETER, INC.
    2022-NCCOA-595
    Opinion of the Court
    Commission did not err by concluding that the Seagraves test does not apply in the
    instant case.
    ¶ 29         Each of Defendants’ remaining arguments assumes the applicability of the
    Seagraves test in this case. Accordingly, we need not address those arguments in light
    of our decision.
    III.     Conclusion
    ¶ 30         For the foregoing reasons, the Full Commission’s Opinion and Award is
    affirmed.
    AFFIRMED.
    Judges WOOD and GRIFFIN concur.