Anderson v. Shoney's of Morganton

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Anderson v. Shoney's of Morganton

332 S.E.2d 93, 76 N.C. App. 158, 1985 N.C. App. LEXIS 3731

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedJuly 16, 1985

DocketNo. 8510IC6

StatusPublished

This text of 332 S.E.2d 93 (Anderson v. Shoney's of Morganton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Anderson v. Shoney's of Morganton, 332 S.E.2d 93, 76 N.C. App. 158, 1985 N.C. App. LEXIS 3731 (N.C. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

ARNOLD, Judge.

Defendants contend, and we agree, that this case is controlled by Liles v. Charles Lee Byrd Logging Co., 309 N.C. 150, 305 S.E. 2d 523 (1983). There the Supreme Court held that to support an award of compensation, there must be not only a showing of serious disfigurement but also some rational connection or nexus between the disfigurement and the various factors outlined (such as age, training, experience, and adaptability) to support a presumption of diminished earning capacity. We find no such nexus. It is readily apparent that plaintiffs scars are not visible during her normal employment, and plaintiff has affirmatively testified that she would not want the type of job where the scars might show. The fact that she has returned to her former job without reduction in pay or apparent incident, while not necessarily probative, bears our conclusion out. On the authority of Liles, we conclude that the Commission’s award was erroneous as a matter of law and must be

Reversed.

Judges Webb and Parker concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ARNOLD, Judge.

Defendants contend, and we agree, that this case is controlled by Liles v. Charles Lee Byrd Logging Co., 309 N.C. 150, 305 S.E. 2d 523 (1983). There the Supreme Court held that to support an award of compensation, there must be not only a showing of serious disfigurement but also some rational connection or nexus between the disfigurement and the various factors outlined (such as age, training, experience, and adaptability) to support a presumption of diminished earning capacity. We find no such nexus. It is readily apparent that plaintiffs scars are not visible during her normal employment, and plaintiff has affirmatively testified that she would not want the type of job where the scars might show. The fact that she has returned to her former job without reduction in pay or apparent incident, while not necessarily probative, bears our conclusion out. On the authority of Liles, we conclude that the Commission’s award was erroneous as a matter of law and must be

Reversed.

Judges Webb and Parker concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

332 S.E.2d 93, 76 N.C. App. 158, 1985 N.C. App. LEXIS 3731, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anderson-v-shoneys-of-morganton-ncctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack