Sturdivant v. N.C. Dept. of Public Safety
| Opinion Filed | April 18, 2023 |
| Attorney for the Case | Stewart Poisson |
| Amicus Brief Writers | Joshua Harper Michael Bertics Richard Harper |
| Court | NC Court of Appeals |
| Docket No. | COA22-421 |
This was the first case to reach the appellate courts on the extended benefits provision added to the Workers’ Compensation Act in 2011. Having received temporary total disability benefits for the maximum of 500 weeks, Plaintiff sought extended benefits under the statute. The Industrial Commission denied the benefits, and Plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeals.
The primary issue was the proper standard for extended benefits. In order to receive temporary total disability, Plaintiff had already proven “total disability.” The extended benefits statute required proof of a “total loss of wage-earning capacity.” The State contended that the extended benefits standard was a higher burden of proof, requiring a showing of complete obliteration of the ability to earn wages, whether or not any actual jobs existed in the competitive job market that a particular plaintiff could actually obtain.
NCAJ filed an amicus brief which clarified that the language “total loss of wage-earning capacity” was a common law term of art with the same meaning as “total disability.” By using this term in the statute, the legislature codified this common law term. The brief argues that the standard urged by the State would bar benefits if a plaintiff “could even hypothetically work in a sporadic, part-time position, with no regard for whether such positions actually exist or whether the plaintiff could reasonably obtain such a job.”
The Court of Appeals agreed with plaintiff and NCAJ, holding that the standard for extended benefits is the same as the prior standard. However, the Court affirmed the Industrial Commission’s ruling that Plaintiff did not meet this burden. There was a dissent (Hampson, J.), which agreed as to the standard, but contended that the proper result was remand as to Industrial Commission to reconsider the case under the proper standard. Although the Plaintiff has not appealed, the State is seeking PDR despite having succeeded in preventing Plaintiff from receiving benefits.
