The first, Mehaffey v. Burger King involved a manager at Burger King who suffered a compensable knee injury while at work.  In the North Carolina Industrial Commission’s Opinion and Award, the Plaintiff was awarded retroactive attendant care fees for his wife, home modifications for a power wheel chair, a hospital bed, and transportation to doctors appointments.   Defendants argued that the Commission erred in awarding retroactive payments for attendant care because they were not pre-approved.  Shockingly, the Court agreed, even though the it recently held in the Boylan and Ruiz cases that pre-approval was not necessary for attendant care services.  The Court relied on the out-dated Hatchett case from 1954, which has been superceded by later Supreme Court decisions and legislative changes.  Perhaps the Court will agree to rehear the case, which appears to be a clear mistake.

Next, in Keeton v. Circle K, the Court affirmed the Industrial Commission’s Opinion and Award, which granted the defendants’ application to suspend benefits.  Keeton appealed the Commission’s decision, contending that she should be entitled to continuing benefits because she made a reasonable effort to return to work and there was no actual refusal to work.  The Court rejected these contentions, concluding there was sufficient evidence to show that the available manager position with Circle K fit within her physical restrictions, was “suitable employment,” and the Plaintiff made no effort to return to work at Circle K.  Thus, deeming the Plaintiff’s actions to be a voluntary refusal to accept suitable employment, the Court affirmed the denial of benefits under N.C. Gen. Stat. 97-32.

In Sperry v. Koury Corp, the Court upheld the Commission’s conclusion that the plaintiff had failed to show that she was totally disabled.  Finally, in Arce v. Mt. Wood Forestry, the Court concluded that the plaintiff — a paraplegic due to a car accident — was entitled to retroactive and prospective payment for attendant care provided by his family, handicapped accessible housing if his landlord will not agree to modification of his current housing, and other elements of a life care plan prepared by a certified life care planner.

In Boylan v. Verizon Wireless, the plaintiff had fallen and injured her back at work.  After back surgery, she continued to have difficulty maneuvering around her home and suffered frequent falls.  She was unable to get into or out of a bathtub by herself, dress herself, prepare her own meals, clean, do yard work, run errands or drive herself to medical appointments.  Her daughter moved in and provided live-in care and, later, plaintiff’s sister also provided attendant care.  After a hearing in 2008, the Commission ruled that plaintiff was disabled, and that defendants had to pay for past and future attendant care.

Defendants appealed, specifically arguing that the Commission’s fee schedule required pre-approval for family-member attendant care.  The Court rejected the argument and held that the Act (N.C.G.S. 97-90) does not require pre-approval of family-member medical care, and apparently found the Fee Schedule to have no bearing on the question.  Therefore, the award for past attendant care services was upheld.

The Court also upheld the Commission’s findings that attendant care was medically necessary and in the amount approved by the Commission.  On cross-appeal, the Court held that it was the wrong forum for a challenge on plaintiff’s attorney fees, and upheld the the Commission’s findings that plainiff did not need a life care planner and was not permanently and totally disabled.