Camp v. Kimberly-Clark Corp.

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedAugust 4, 2004
DocketI.C. NO. 686290
StatusPublished

This text of Camp v. Kimberly-Clark Corp. (Camp v. Kimberly-Clark Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering North Carolina Industrial Commission primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Camp v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., (N.C. Super. Ct. 2004).

Opinion

***********
A limited question of possible credit for defendant pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-42 is before the Full Commission on remand from the October 7, 2003 judgment of the North Carolina Court of Appeals which judgment became final after defendant's unsuccessful petitions for a Writ of Supersedeas and Discretionary Review were denied by the Supreme Court of North Carolina. The Full Commission found, and the Court of Appeals agreed, that plaintiff is totally and permanently disabled as a result of the contraction of the industrial disease of byssinosis, a form of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Excepting the issue eo instante, by the Full Commission order dated June 14, 2004, plaintiff became entitled to the workers' compensation benefits which he should have received weekly beginning June 6, 1996, but which were denied to him by the defendant during the ensuing eight years of litigation.

***********
Based upon the record developed in the hearing before Deputy Commissioner Kim Cramer in Hendersonville, NC, on April 14, 1998, the Full Commission makes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Plaintiff is entitled to total disability compensation at the rate of $407.24 per week from June 6, 1996, and continuing for the remainder of his life.

2. The sole evidence presented before the Deputy Commissioner concerning benefits received by plaintiff was by Sandra Brown Claxton, Human Resource manager for the defendant, who testified that she was familiar with the defendant's benefit program to "some degree".

3. Ms. Claxon testified that plaintiff received two disability benefits. One was a reduced retirement pension available to employees who either must retire or voluntarily retire before full retirement age. The second was a monthly long — term disability payment. The reduced retirement pension was wholly funded by the employer. Six-sevenths of the long-term disability payment was funded by the employer and one-seventh was funded by the employee.

4. The monthly amount of the reduced retirement pension is $366.02. On a weekly basis it amounts to $84.47. It may be reasonably inferred that the total of the reduced retirement pension payments made over a given employee's expected lifetime (from the date of early retirement to the expected date of death) is equal to the total of the full retirement pension payments made over a given employee's lifetime from the date of normal retirement to the expected date of death. Thus the payments of early retirement are just that: early payments and not additional payments. Thus it may be reasonably inferred that the reduced retirement pension was not a true disability payment.

5. The monthly amount of the long-term disability payment is $348.34. Six-sevenths of this amount is $298.58. On a weekly basis the six-sevenths amounts to $68.90.

6. Disability compensation became payable in this matter on February 16, 2004, following the tenth day after the N.C. Supreme Court denied defendant's application for discretionary review and defendant's petition for writ of supersedeas

7. Defendant claims it is entitled, at the discretion of the Industrial Commission and pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-42 to credits as follows: $85.15 per week by reason of the reduced retirement pension and $69.44 per week by reason of the long-term disability payments (this latter amount claims benefits to the employer not only for the six-sevenths funded by the employer but for the one-seventh funded by the employee).

8. Due to defendant's denial of this compensable claim and defendant's subsequent appeal to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, both plaintiff and plaintiff's attorney have been without compensation as long as June 6, 1996.

9. In contested workers' compensation cases today, access to competent legal counsel is a virtual necessity. If attorney's fees were allowed to be calculated from only the difference between the workers' compensation award and the private insurer's payment, then almost no attorney could afford to take a contested case where voluntary payments had already been made. Leaving injured employees without the representation they need to obtain the complete and total amount of their workers' compensation award would defeat the purposes of the Act. In fact, employers would be encouraged to contest liability and meanwhile make voluntary payments less than that required by the Workers' Compensation Act.

***********
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, the Full Commission reaches the following:

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-42 provides:

Payments made by the employer to the injured employee during the period of his disability, or to his dependents, which by the terms of this Article were not due and payable when made, may, subject to the approval of the Commission be deducted from the amount to be paid as compensation. Provided, that in the case of disability such deductions shall be made by shortening the period during which compensation must be paid, and not by reducing the amount of the weekly payment. Unless otherwise provided by the plan, when payments are made to an injured employee pursuant to an employer-funded salary continuation, disability or other income replacement plan, the deduction shall be calculated from payments made by the employer in each week during which compensation was due and payable, without any carry-forward or carry-back of credit for amounts paid in excess of the compensation rate in any given week.

History (1929, c. 120, s. 42; 1993 (Reg. Sess., 1994), c. 679, s. 3.7.)

2. The proviso in the above section mandates that "in the case of disability such deductions shall be made by shortening the period during which compensation must be paid, and not by reducing the amount of the weekly payment." It is possible to give effect to the proviso whenever disability payments are to be made over a finite period of time and impossible to give effect to the proviso in a lifetime disability case since it is impossible to determine in advance the end period of weekly compensation. Thus it is impossible to give effect to the proviso in this case since it is a lifetime case.

3. The laudable purpose of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-42 is to encourage voluntary payments to workers while their claims to compensation are being disputed and they are receiving no wages.Evans v. AT T Technologies, 103 N.C. App. 45, 404 S.E.2d 183, rev'd on other grounds, 332 N.C. 78, 418 S.E.2d 503 (1992). The only authority for allowing an employer in this state any credit against workers' compensation payments due an injured employee is this section. Evans v. AT T Technologies, 103 N.C. App. 45,404 S.E.2d 183, rev'd on other grounds, 332 N.C. 78, 418 S.E.2d 503 (1992).

4.

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

Related

Moretz v. Richards & Associates, Inc.
327 S.E.2d 290 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1985)
Johnson v. IBM, Inc.
389 S.E.2d 121 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1990)
Evans v. AT & T TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
418 S.E.2d 503 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1992)
Evans v. AT & T TECHNOLOGIES
404 S.E.2d 183 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1991)
Moretz v. Richards & Associates, Inc.
342 S.E.2d 844 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1986)
Church v. Baxter Travenol Laboratories, Inc.
409 S.E.2d 715 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Camp v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/camp-v-kimberly-clark-corp-ncworkcompcom-2004.