NC Workers' Compensation: Delay in Seeking Retroactive Payment for Attendant Care was Reasonable (Originally Posted by Sean Cecil Dec 01, 2015)



www.edelsteinpayne.com

NC Workers' Compensation: Delay in Seeking Retroactive Payment for Attendant Care was Reasonable


(Originally Posted by Sean Cecil Dec 01, 2015)  (0 Comments)
Sometimes it's better not to appeal a ruling you don't agree with. In an opinion issued today by the North Carolina Court of Appeals, workers' comp insurer Liberty Mutual was again ordered to pay an injured worker's attorney fees, after the company unsuccessfully appealed an order to pay for attendant care for the second time.
The worker, Connie Chandler, was injured over ten years ago when she fell and hit her head on stairs while performing janitorial duties. She was diagnosed with a concussion and a closed-head brain injury. Her condition deteriorated, eventually she required round-the-clock attendant care and was later ruled legally incompetent; her husband was appointed guardian. 
Ms. Chandler's husband acted as his wife's attendant for years, without pay. Doctors, including ones hired by Liberty Mutual, had unanimously agreed on the need for attendant care as far back as 2004. She requested retroactive compensation for the care in 2008, and Liberty Mutual appealed the Industrial Commission's decision granting the fees, all the way to the Supreme Court. Then, the insurance company appealed again, claiming that the Commission had not provided findings regarding the reasonableness of the delay in seeking payment for the attendant care, which they argued was implicit in the Supreme Court's ruling because of a case cited by in that Court's ruling. 
In the case relied upon by  the insurance company, Mehaffey v. Burger King, 217 N.C. 120 (2013), the Industrial Commission ordered retroactive payment for attendant care that was being provided by the plaintiff's spouse that began more than a year prior to the medical recommendation for such care. The Supreme Court confirmed the Commission's authority to order retroactive compensation for spousal attendant care services, but remanded to the Commission for a determination of the reasonableness of the plaintiff's delay in seeking the Commission's approval for the services. 
Liberty Mutual argued that a review of the reasonableness of Chandler's delay in seeking compensation for attendant care was implicit because the Supreme Court cited Mehaffey. The argument was not well received. The Court of Appeals ruled that the Industrial Commission's decision on remand to not make additional findings of fact regarding the reasonableness of the delay was "entirely consistent" with existing case law. The court ruled that nothing in the Supreme Court's ruling required the Commission to revisit the issue of reasonableness, that the Commission had already made detailed findings regarding the issue, and that the delay was in fact reasonable- at least in part because of the injured worker's deteriorating mental condition and the fact that no guardian was appointed to make legal decisions for her until 2008, a handful of weeks after the request for payment for attendant care.  
Fulll text of the Court of Appeals decision in Chandler v. Atl. Scrap & Processing can be read here. 
The North Carolina Workers' Compensation attorneys at Edelstein Payne & Lucas handle workers comp claims across the State of North Carolina. We provide free consultations for anyone who thinks they have a claim; appointments can be scheduled via our web-form Contact us (Free Comp Case Evaluations)
___________________________
If you, a co-worker, friend, neighbor, family member, or a loved one was injured on the job, please know we're here to help.  We provide complimentary case evaluations for workplace accidents any where in the state of North Carolina

For Valuable Tips, Join us, Follow and Subscribe to Edelstein Payne:

Facebook:

Twitter:

Google+

Youtube:

Blogger:

Google Places:

Instagram:

Linkedin:

Pinterest:

Tumblr:

Yelp:

YP.com:
Location: 315 E Jones St, Raleigh, NC 27601, USA

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Home Healthcare Workers are Entitled to Overtime Pay (Originally Posted by Sean Cecil Jul 06, 2016)

Image
https://edelsteinpayne.com/employment-law Home Healthcare Workers are Entitled to Overtime Pay Originally Posted by Sean Cecil Jul 06, 2016 (0 Comments) Long the subject of a terribly unfair rule that exempted them from such standard employment rights as overtime and minimum wage, home healthcare workers are among the worst treated of American workers. Home Healthcare workers hired through a third-party staffing agency have been exempted from those rules since 1974! The Obama administration attempted to remedy this injustice in 2013, and the result has been tied up in courts until last week, when the United States Supreme Court ruled that they would not hear further appeal (the administration's rulemaking prevailed in the court of appeals) effectively ratifying the rule. Home healthcare workers, including, nurses, certified nursing assistants, physical therapists, and others who provide services to the elderly and infirm to help keep them out of nursing homes, provid...
Read more

Felony Larceny by Removing Anti-Shoplifting Device (Originally Posted by Sean Cecil Feb 12, 2016)

Image
https://edelsteinpayne.com/criminal-defense Felony Larceny by Removing Anti-Shoplifting Device Originally Posted by Sean Cecil Feb 12, 2016 (0 Comments) As I am still fairly new to the North Carolina Bar and the practice of criminal defense here in NC, I was surprised to recently be in a consultation with an individual whose petty shoplifting allegation was charged as a felony because of the additional allegation that he had removed a security device.  Shoplifting in North Carolina can be charged as a felony if the value of the goods stolen exceeds $1,000.00. It can also be a felony in some other circumstances, including if the person has four or more prior convictions for larceny.  Under North Carolina General Statute Sect. 14-72.11(2), a person is guilty of a Class H felony if the person commits larceny against a merchant "by removing, destroying, or deactivating a component of an antishoplifting or inventory control device  to prevent the activation of a...
Read more

NC Court of Appeals Confirms No Duty to Retreat Prior to Self-Defense (Originally Posted by Sean Cecil Jun 07, 2017)

Image
https://edelsteinpayne.com/criminal-defense NC Court of Appeals Confirms No Duty to Retreat Prior to Self-Defense Originally Posted by Sean Cecil Jun 07, 2017 (0 Comments) North Carolina law does not require retreat before use of self-defense. "Perfect" self-defense is a defense against criminal charges; "imperfect" may be used as a mitigating factor in sentencing. Perfect self-defense requires all four of the following elements: (1) It appeared to defendant and he believed it to be necessary to use force to save himself from harm;  (2) Defendant's belief was reasonable in that the circumstances as they appeared to him at the time were sufficient to create such a belief in the mind of a person of ordinary firmness; (3) Defendant was not the aggressor in bringing on the affray, i.e., he did not aggressively and willingly enter into the fight without legal excuse or provocation; and (4) Defendant did not use excessive force.  Imperfect sel...
Read more