Johnson v. IBM, Inc.

389 S.E.2d 121, 97 N.C. App. 493, 1990 N.C. App. LEXIS 165
CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina
DecidedMarch 6, 1990
Docket8810IC627
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 389 S.E.2d 121 (Johnson v. IBM, Inc.) 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
Johnson v. IBM, Inc., 389 S.E.2d 121, 97 N.C. App. 493, 1990 N.C. App. LEXIS 165 (N.C. Ct. App. 1990).

Opinion

PHILLIPS, Judge.

Plaintiff’s appeal questions only the legality of deducting from his award the payments he received under the employer’s medical disability plan while his claim for further compensation was being processed. The following portion of G.S. 97-42 is the Commission’s only authority under the Workers’ Compensation Act for making deductions from an employee’s compensation award:

Any 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 Industrial *495 Commission be deducted from the amount to be paid as compensation.

This provision permits, but does not require, the Commission to deduct from a compensation award to an injured employee any payments made by the employer before the employee’s right to compensation under the terms of the Workers’ Compensation Act was established. Moretz v. Richards & Associates, Inc., 316 N.C. 539, 342 S.E.2d 844 (1986). Thus, whether the payments deducted were due and payable under the Act when made determines the appeal; if they were “due and payable when made” they may not be deducted; if they were not then due and payable the Commission had authority in its discretion to deduct them, and no abuse is indicated or contended.

Plaintiff’s argument, in substance, is that the payments involved were due and payable when made, and therefore not deductible under G.S. 97-42, because the agreement entered into on 8 November 1982 established that the employee’s injury was compen-sable under the Workers’ Compensation Act, and the payments followed that determination. The argument has no merit. That agreement, when approved by the Commission, was a binding award, Watkins v. Central Motor Lines, Inc., 279 N.C. 132, 181 S.E.2d 588 (1971); it established that the permanent consequences of plaintiff’s injury was a twenty-five percent disability of the back and settled the claim for the amount stated in the absence of a substantial change of condition being found under the provisions of G.S. 97-47. Pratt v. Central Upholstery Co., Inc., 252 N.C. 716, 115 S.E.2d 27 (1960). Thus, no further payment of any kind was due plaintiff under the Workers’ Compensation Act until the Commission completed its review of plaintiff’s situation and determined that his condition had substantially changed and he was totally disabled; the payments made by the employer’s medical plan before then were not due and payable under the Workers’ Compensation Act “when made” and the deduction was authorized by G.S. 97-42. Upon similar facts our Supreme Court reached the same conclusion in Foster v. Western-Electric Co., 320 N.C. 113, 357 S.E.2d 670 (1987).

Affirmed.

Judges COZORT and GREENE concur.

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

Related

Thompson v. Cranfill, Sumner, & Hartzog
Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2025
Meares v. Dana Corp./Wix Div.
615 S.E.2d 912 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2005)
Camp v. Kimberly-Clark Corp.
North Carolina Industrial Commission, 2004
Effingham v. THE KROGER CO.
561 S.E.2d 287 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2002)
Drumgold v. Perdue Farms, Inc.
North Carolina Industrial Commission, 2002
Loch v. ENTERTAINMENT PARTNERS EMPLOYER
557 S.E.2d 182 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2001)
Farley v. North Carolina Department of Labor
553 S.E.2d 231 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2001)
Thomas v. BF Goodrich
550 S.E.2d 193 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2001)
Thomas v. B.F. Goodrich
North Carolina Industrial Commission, 2000

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
389 S.E.2d 121, 97 N.C. App. 493, 1990 N.C. App. LEXIS 165, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-ibm-inc-ncctapp-1990.