JULIUS M. BENTON, Jr.,
Employee,
Plaintiff;
v. Industrial Commission
I.C. No. 025841
SUTHERLAND PRECISION FRAMING,
Employer;
AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL
UNDERWRITERS / AIGCS,
Carrier;
Defendants.
Mako & Robinson, P.A., by Bruce H. Robinson, Jr., for
plaintiff-appellant.
Robinson & Lawing, LLP, by Jolinda J. Babcock, for
defendants-appellees.
STEELMAN, Judge.
Plaintiff, Julius M. Benton, Jr., appeals an Opinion and
Award by the North Carolina Industrial Commission (Commission) in
a workers' compensation case. For the reasons discussed herein,
we affirm.Plaintiff asserts that on 28 March 2000, he suffered an
injury to his back, right shoulder and right hip after tripping
over a tree stump and falling to the ground. At the time of the
alleged injury, plaintiff was working with defendant, Sutherland
Precision Framing, as a subcontractor in Wilmington, North
Carolina. He was carrying four 2x4s in his arms when he tripped.
As a result of the injury, plaintiff saw Dr. William Parker in
Wilmington.
Plaintiff filed a Form 18 Notice of Accident. Thereafter, a
Form 19 was filed with the Industrial Commission. Defendant then
filed a Form 61 Denial of Claim on 12 May 2000, stating that
plaintiff did not sustain an injury by accident. On 24 May 2000,
plaintiff filed a Form 33 Request for Hearing.
This matter was heard before the deputy commissioner, who
denied plaintiff's claim and ordered him to pay defendants'
attorney fees in the amount of $4,813.00 for failure to comply
with an order of the Commission regarding discovery. On 11
January 2001, Commissioners Bernadine S. Ballance, Dianne C.
Sellers and Christopher Scott filed an Opinion and Award denying
plaintiff's claim, but declining to impose sanctions and award
attorney fees to defendants.
Prior to the injury alleged in this matter, plaintiff had
suffered a number of injuries, including four workers'compensation claims, and one automobile claim. Since 1996
plaintiff was limited to sedentary work by his physician, and was
limited to lifting 15 pounds. Plaintiff applied to work with
defendant as a framer. He failed to disclose to defendant his
work restrictions. On 28 March 2000, the owner advised plaintiff
that due to his mistakes on the construction site, and his
inability to perform required work, his employment was
terminated. Shortly thereafter, plaintiff contends that he was
injured on the job.
In reviewing a decision of the Commission, we are limited to
reviewing whether competent evidence supports the Commission's
findings, and whether the findings of fact support the
conclusions of law. Sheehan v. Perry M. Alexander Constr. Co.,
150 N.C. App. 506, 563 S.E.2d 300 (2002). In this case,
plaintiff made no exceptions to the Commission's findings of
fact, and they are thus binding on appeal. Creel v. Town of
Dover, 126 N.C. App. 547, 486 S.E.2d 478 (1997). Our review is
limited as to whether the Commission's findings support its
conclusions of law.
Plaintiff assigns six errors of the Commission: (1) it
demonstrated bias, and became an advocate for the employer; (2)
it improperly impeached the plaintiff with convictions in
violation of Rule 609(b) of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence;(3) it improperly considered his prior workers' compensation
claims; (4) it failed to rule on alleged violations of N.C. Gen.
Stat. § 97-18, which may have been the basis of a class action
lawsuit; (5) it demonstrated bias resulting in a conclusions that
he lacked credibility; and (6) it considered his handicap in
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Chapter 168A
of the North Carolina General Statutes.
As to the first, second and fifth assignments of error, the
Commission is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of
the evidence. Deese v. Champion Int'l Corp., 352 N.C. 109, 116,
530 S.E.2d 549, 553 (2000). The Commission is not bound by the
Rules of Evidence. Kisiah v. W.R. Kisiah Plumbing, 124 N.C. App.
72, 476 S.E.2d 434 (1996), rev. denied, 345 N.C. 343, 483 S.E.2d
169 (1997). Additionally, the Commission is not required to
explain its findings of fact by attempting to distinguish which
evidence or witnesses it finds credible. Deese, at 116-117, 530
S.E.2d at 553. Further, there is nothing in the record that in
any way supports plaintiff's assertion that the Commission
demonstrated bias in favor of the employer. This assignment of
error is overruled.
As to the third assignment of error, the Commission made
extensive findings of plaintiff's prior injuries, some of which
were work related, and some of which were non-work related. These findings were pertinent to the Commission's conclusion of
law that the plaintiff failed to prove a causal relationship
between his alleged injuries and his employment. This assignment
of error is therefore overruled.
As to the fourth assignment of error, the Commission found
that the employer's denial was made within 45 days of the date
of the alleged accident and within 38 days of the filing of the
Form 18. The time frame within which the defendant filed the
Form 61 was reasonable and justified based upon the facts of this
case. This finding supported the Commission's conclusion that
the denial of the plaintiff's claim was reasonable and timely
under the provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-18(c). This
assignment of error is overruled.
As to the sixth assignment of error, the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the Persons with Disabilities Protection Act
(Chapter 168A of the North Carolina General Statutes) prohibit
employers from discriminating against their employees as to
certain disabilities. These statutes deal specifically with the
employer-employee relationship, and do not bar the Commission
from considering plaintiff's past medical conditions in
determining whether the plaintiff had a compensable injury under
Chapter 97. This assignment of error is overruled.We hold that the uncontested findings of the Commission
support its conclusions of law, and the order of the Commission
is therefore affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
Judges MARTIN and HUDSON concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***