Watts v. Hemlock Homes of the Highlands, Inc.

544 S.E.2d 1, 141 N.C. App. 725, 2001 N.C. App. LEXIS 22
CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina
DecidedJanuary 16, 2001
DocketCOA99-1630
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 544 S.E.2d 1 (Watts v. Hemlock Homes of the Highlands, 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
Watts v. Hemlock Homes of the Highlands, Inc., 544 S.E.2d 1, 141 N.C. App. 725, 2001 N.C. App. LEXIS 22 (N.C. Ct. App. 2001).

Opinion

MARTIN, Judge.

Plaintiff, Jimmy Lewis Watts, injured his left shoulder on 26 September 1995 when he fell off a log while working for Hemlock Homes of the Highlands, Inc. (“Hemlock”). In response to the accident, defendant Hemlock completed a North Carolina Industrial Commission Form 19 on 2 October 1995. The Form 19 stated that plaintiff was a carpenter with an average weekly wage of $480.00, based on a 40-hour work week and wages of $12.00 per hour. On 6 October 1995, a claims representative from Hemlock’s carrier, *726 Consolidated Administrators, Inc., a predecessor of defendant Builders Mutual, filed a North Carolina Industrial Commission Form 60, "Employer’s Admission of Employee’s Right to Compensation Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-18(b).” The Form 60 admitted Hemlock’s liability for the injury and plaintiff’s right to compensation. The Form 60 recited that plaintiff’s average weekly wage was $480.00, which resulted in a weekly compensation rate of $320.01. Plaintiff was paid compensation at this rate until January 1996. Compensation at the same rate was reinstated on 22 February 1996. On 26 February 1996, defendants executed another Industrial Commission Form, Form 62, “Notice of Reinstatement of Compensation Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-32.1 or N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-18(b),” again stating the plaintiff’s average weekly wage as $480.00 with a weekly compensation rate of $320.01. On the same date defendants executed the Form 62, defendant Builders Mutual prepared a letter to defendant Hemlock, which stated the following:

We have received the Wage Transcript on the above employee. Agreements previously signed by this employee indicated that his Average Weekly Wages were $480.00. After computation of this Wage Transcript, we have determined that the Average Weekly Wage has now been changed to $244.73. Thus the Compensation Rate for this employee has been corrected from $320.01 to $163.16.
Please have the employee above [Mr. Watts] sign this letter below and return to the address shown below of [sic] this letter.

Plaintiff signed the letter as directed by defendant Hemlock. Defendants sent a copy of the letter to the Industrial Commission on 18 March 1996 and again on 21 March 1996.

On 21 October 1998, plaintiff filed a certified copy of the Form 60 with the Clerk of Superior Court for Jackson County and served a copy on defendants. On 25 February 1999, plaintiff moved for the entry of judgment in the amount of $26,691.70, which is the difference between the amount due plaintiff at the compensation rate shown on the Form 60 and the amount actually paid by defendants. The Superior Court rendered judgment in favor of plaintiff, requiring defendants to pay plaintiff $29,571.88 in past due compensation and to pay “ongoing compensation to Plaintiff consistent with the Form 60 in the amount of $320.01.” Defendants appeal.

*727 Defendants argue that the Superior Court of Jackson County lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enter judgment in this matter because the dispute involves issues within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Industrial Commission. We agree.

Pursuant to G.S. § 97-91, “[a]ll questions arising under this Article if not settled by agreements of the parties interested therein, with the approval of the Commission, shall be determined by the Commission, except as otherwise herein provided.” Once the Industrial Commission makes an award, however, the superior court has jurisdiction to enforce the award. G.S. § 97-87 provides in relevant part:

[a]ny party in interest may file in the superior court of the county in which the injury occurred a certified copy of a memorandum of agreement approved by the Commission, or of an order or decision of the Commission, or of an award of the Commission unappealed from or of an award of the Commission affirmed upon appeal, whereupon said court shall render judgment in accordance therewith, and notify the parties.

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-87 (emphasis added).

North Carolina Industrial Commission Form 60 was promulgated by the Commission pursuant to G.S. § 97-18(b) which permits an employer to admit the compensability of an employee’s injury, to pay compensation, and to notify the Commission by the Form 60, “Employer’s Admission of Employee’s Right to Compensation,” of such action. In Calhoun v. Wayne Dennis Heating & Air Conditioning, 129 N.C. App. 794, 798, 501 S.E.2d 346, 349 (1998), review dismissed, 350 N.C. 92, 532 S.E.2d 524 (1999), this Court held that a Form 60, properly executed by the employer, is an “award” within the meaning of G.S. § 97-87 and may be converted into a court judgment.

Though plaintiff contends Calhoun controls the decision in the present case, we construe the holding in Calhoun more narrowly and believe its applicability is limited to the facts then before the Court. In Calhoun, the employer executed a Form 60 agreeing the employee was entitled to compensation, but then did not pay any compensation. The employee sought to enforce the payment of compensation. The employer moved to dismiss the action for failure to state a claim and contended plaintiff was not entitled to benefits. The employer made no issue as to the rate of compensation to which the employee *728 was entitled. This Court held that the Form 60 constituted an “award” of the Commission and that plaintiff had followed the proper procedure to have a judgment entered by the superior court. The Court noted parenthetically that pursuant to G.S. § 97-83, if the parties disagree as to “benefits,” either may request a hearing before the Commission.

In the present case, there is no dispute as to compensability and the record shows that defendants have paid plaintiff compensation on a weekly basis since executing the Form 60. The issue raised by defendants is not whether the superior court had jurisdiction to enter judgment enforcing the award that plaintiffs injury is compensable pursuant to the Form 60; rather, defendants question whether the superior court had jurisdiction to resolve the dispute between the parties as to the amount, or rate, of compensation to which plaintiff is entitled, which depends on a determination of his average weekly wage. We hold this to be a question within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commission.

G.S. § 97-82(b) specifically states that payment pursuant to G.S. § 97-18(b) (a Form 60 Payment) “shall constitute an award of the Commission on the question of compensability of and the insurer’s liability for the injury for which payment was made.” (emphasis added). Moreover, Form 60 states only “[y]our employer admits your right to compensation for an injury by accident on (date) . ...” Below this acknowledgment of liability is a section provided for a description of the accident, the average weekly wage and resulting compensation rate, and the date which disability begins and ends.

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

Related

Bridges v. Parrish
742 S.E.2d 794 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2013)
Brantley v. Edwards Brothers
North Carolina Industrial Commission, 2006
Perez v. American Airlines/AMR Corp.
620 S.E.2d 288 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2005)
Barbour v. Regis Corp.
606 S.E.2d 119 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2004)
Lewis v. Beachview Exxon Svc.
North Carolina Industrial Commission, 2004
Watts v. Hemlock Homes of the Highlands, Inc.
584 S.E.2d 97 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
544 S.E.2d 1, 141 N.C. App. 725, 2001 N.C. App. LEXIS 22, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/watts-v-hemlock-homes-of-the-highlands-inc-ncctapp-2001.