NC Personal Injury Attorneys Setting the Standard

Workers’ Compensation

It is an unfortunate fact of life that accidents will happen at the work place.  North Carolina has developed a system to compensate and address injuries that occur as a result of an accident at the work place, as well as occupational diseases that result from conditions at the work place. The Workers’ Compensation Act outlines what benefits are available to injured employees, and the Act is administered by the North Carolina Industrial Commission.  When this system works as it is meant to, injured employees receive timely weekly compensation benefits for the period of time that they are out of work as a result of the work place accident or occupational disease and medical treatment for the injuries. If the work place accident results in permanent injury, the injured employee receives compensation as specifically outlined in the Workers’ Compensation Act for that permanent injury.

Many times, however, the workers’ compensation system does not seem to work as it was meant to. A disagreement may arise between the injured employee and the employer and/or workers’ compensation insurance carrier. When that happens, the disagreement needs to be presented to the Industrial Commission, either through a hearing or on a motion, so that the Industrial Commission can address and resolve the disagreement.

The Pinto Coates Kyre and Brown firm is experienced in representing parties in workers’ compensation claims.  We know the forms that need to be filed and how to navigate the rules and requirements of the Industrial Commission.  We have represented employers and workers’ compensation carriers and understand the motivations and goals behind achieving effective resolutions.  We have also represented injured employees and understand the toll that such an injury can have on a person and his or her family. Therefore, whether you are an employer or an employee, we have the knowledge and experience to assist you with routine cases as well as large, complicated catastrophic losses.

Attorney Who Handles Matters in the Workers’ Compensation Practice Area:

Legal Decisions of Interest

  • Plaintiff’s appointment as administratrix of a decedent’s estate the day after her complaint was filed and after the statute of limitations had run related back to the filing of the summons and therefore her wrongful death claim was not barred by the statute of limitations. Tallman v. City of Gastonia, No. COA08-1021 (N.C. App. Sept. 15, 2009). Click here for a copy of the case opinion.
  • Punitive damages upheld when Court believed there was sufficient evidence that defendant’s restaurant manager’s conduct was willful and wanton based upon his conduct toward plaintiff at the restaurant. Everhart v. O’Charley’s Inc., No. COA08-1454 (N.C. App. Oct. 6, 2009). Click here for a copy of the case opinion.
  • Plaintiff (representative of deceased employee) failed in her burden of forecasting evidence that a parent company affirmatively undertook to provide a safe working environment at the parent company’s subsidiary plant, beyond concern or minimal contact about safety matters, and the parent company did not assume primary responsibility for industrial safety at the subsidiary’s plant.  Edwards v. GE Lighting Systems, Inc., No. COA09-247 (N.C. App. Nov. 3, 2009). Click here for a copy of the case opinion.
  • Plaintiff allowed to pursue claim to have “corporate veil” pierced of defendant company so that the obligation on a note by individual owning 99% of the stock of the defendant company could be satisfied from assets of defendant company, even though the company did not participate in the making of the note giving rise to the owner’s obligation. Fischer Investment Capital, Inc. v. Catawba Development Corp., No. COA08-1407 (N.C. App. Nov. 3, 2009). Click here for a copy of the case opinion.
  • Homeowners Association did not owe to a minor who was struck while riding his bike by a vehicular driver a legal duty to maintain the foliage in the common area of the housing subdivision. Fairbanks v. Brewington, No. COA09-237 (N.C. App. Jan. 19, 2010).  Click here for a copy of the case opinion.
  • Plaintiff was contributorily negligent when she tripped over an end table at a hospital, and she presented no evidence that her attention was diverted as she was walking. Snow v. Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center, No. COA09-189 (N.C. App. Jan. 19, 2010). Click here for a copy of the case opinion.
  • Where the Complaint was not frivolous based upon the facts and the law, but because Plaintiff had a history of filing frivolous pleadings in general and against Defendant in particular, the trial court could conclude that Plaintiff filed the Complaint for an improper purpose. Ward v. Jett Properties, LLC, No. COA08-1508 (N.C. App. Feb. 2, 2010). Click here for a copy of the case opinion.
  • Where the plaintiff mother alleged that the city was negligent by failing to comply with safety statutes and city ordinances regulating the maintenance of city streets, obstructions to vision and traffic, and parking regulations, and she did not seek to recover damages for the death of her child based on a law enforcement agency's failure to exercise its general duty to protect the public, she was not barred by the public duty doctrine.  Beckles-Palomares v. Logan, No. COA09-567 (N.C. App. Feb. 2, 2010). Click here for a copy of the case opinion.
  • The improvement-to-real-property statute of repose does not apply to a claim against a city for failing to maintain its streets because a city has the duty to exercise a continuing supervision over its streets in order that it may know their condition and it is held to have knowledge of a defect which such inspection would have disclosed to it. Beckles-Palomares v. Logan, No. COA09-567 (N.C. App. Feb. 2, 2010). Click here for a copy of the case opinion.

Office Location

Phone:
336.282.8848
Fax:
336.282.8409
3203 Brassfield Road Greensboro, NC 27410
NC Personal Injury Lawyers