All opinions
are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official
publication in the North Carolina Reports and North Carolina Court of Appeals
Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an
opinion and the print version appearing in the North Carolina Reports and North
Carolina Court of Appeals Reports, the latest print version is to be considered
authoritative.
NO. COA05-08
NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS
Filed:
15 November 2005
JONATHON HELSIUS,
Petitioner,
v. Durham
County
No.
04 SP 533
ELWANDA S. ROBERTSON and
COUNTY OF DURHAM,
Respondents.
Appeal by respondent County of Durham from judgement entered 6 July 2004 by Judge Ronald L. Stephens in Durham County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 14 September 2005.
Clayton,
Myrick, McClanahan & Coulter, PLLC, by Robert D. McClanahan, for
petitioner-appellee.
Office
of the County Attorney, by Assistant County Attorney Curtis Massey, for County
of Durham respondent-appellant.
JACKSON, Judge.
On 14 July 2003, Jonathon Helsius (“petitioner”) was injured
in the course and scope of his employment with the Durham County Sheriff’s
Office. While escorting a funeral
procession, petitioner’s motorcycle was struck by a vehicle driven by Elwanda
Robertson.[Note 1] As a result of the collision, petitioner sustained
serious injuries including a severe concussion, pinpoint bleeding in his brain,
a broken wrist, punctured lung, broken ribs, and compression fractures in his
spine. Petitioner was admitted
to the hospital following the accident, and was discharged a few days
later. Petitioner was permitted to
return to work full-time, but on light/desk duty on 1 September 2003, and he
returned to full duty on 8 October 2003.
The County of Durham (“respondent”) paid petitioner a total
of $53,128.40 in workers’ compensation benefits, representing medical expenses,
temporary total disability, and permanent partial disability compensation.
Petitioner applied to the trial court, pursuant to North
Carolina General Statutes, section 97-10.2(j), for a determination of the
amount of the County of Durham’s subrogation lien and to distribute the
settlement amount. Petitioner presented
extensive testimony at the hearing.
Respondent did not present any evidence, but did present arguments in
support of its various motions to dismiss based on sovereign immunity and
violation of its rights under the North Carolina Constitution.
On 6 July 2004, the trial court entered an order denying all
of respondent’s motions and extinguishing respondent’s subrogation lien. From this order the County of Durham
appeals.
Respondent first contends the trial court committed
reversible error when it failed to dismiss the matter, as the County’s
sovereign immunity had not been waived and thus barred the proceedings. We do not find this argument to be credible,
and thus hold the trial court did not err.
In this State it is well established that counties are a
part of the State government, and thus are entitled to sovereign immunity. Dawes v. Nash County, 357 N.C. 442,
445, 584 S.E.2d 760, 762, reh’g denied, 357 N.C. 511, 587 S.E.2d 417
(2003); White v. Commissioners of Chowan County, 90 N.C. 437 (1884);
Archer v. Rockingham County, 144 N.C. App. 550, 548 S.E.2d 788 (2001), disc.
review denied, 355 N.C. 210, 559 S.E.2d 796 (2002). A county may not be sued unless there is a
specific statute authorizing the suit, or the county has consented to being
sued or has waived its immunity. Id.
Respondent contends the county neither waived its sovereign
immunity nor did petitioner allege a waiver of the immunity, and therefore
petitioner’s petition for a determination on respondent’s lien should have been
dismissed. However, respondent also
argues that although petitioner’s action should be dismissed based on sovereign
immunity, respondent still should be permitted to maintain a lien on
petitioner’s settlement proceeds pursuant to North Carolina General Statutes,
section 97-10.2(j). Respondent
effectively is asking this Court to permit it to maintain a lien on
petitioner’s settlement proceeds, while at the same time giving petitioner no
means by which to challenge to the lien.
North Carolina General Statutes, section 97-10.2(j) (2004)
provides in pertinent part:
[I]n the event
that a settlement has been agreed upon by the employee and the third party,
either party may apply to the resident superior court judge of the county in
which the cause of action arose . . . to determine the subrogation amount. After notice to the employer and the
insurance carrier, after an opportunity to be heard by all interested parties,
and with or without the consent of the employer, the judge shall determine,
in his discretion, the amount, if any, of the employer’s lien . . . .
N.C.
Gen. Stat. §97-10.2(j) (2004) (emphasis added). This statute is included in our State’s workers’ compensation
laws, which specifically provide that the State of North Carolina, along with
its political subdivisions (i.e. counties) are subject to the Workers’
Compensation Act found in Chapter 97 of our General Statutes. N.C. Gen. Stat. §97-7 (2004). Employees covered by the Workers’
Compensation Act include “deputy sheriffs and all persons acting in the
capacity of deputy sheriffs.” N.C. Gen.
Stat. §97-2(2) (2004). The Act further
provides that employers who must abide by the Act include
[t]he board of commissioners of each county of the State, . . . all deputy sheriffs serving within such county, or persons serving or performing the duties of a deputy sheriff, whether such persons are appointed by the sheriff or by the board of commissioners and whether serving on a fee basis or salary basis.
N.C.
Gen. Stat. §97-2(3) (2004). Based upon
the fact that county governments are subject to the Workers’ Compensation Act
and its provisions regarding payment and compensation under the Act, we hold
there is specific statutory authority authorizing petitioner to seek a
determination of the County of Durham’s authority to file a lien against
petitioner’s settlement proceeds.
Respondent next contends that North Carolina General
Statutes, section 97-10.2(j) is unconstitutional under the North Carolina
Constitution, for being vague and violative of its due process rights, and for
violating the Exclusive Emoluments Clause.
We have previously rejected the argument that North Carolina General
Statutes, section 97-10.2(j) is unconstitutionally vague and violative of due
process, and therefore need not address this issue. See In re Biddix, 138 N.C. App. 500, 530 S.E.2d 70, disc.
review denied, 352 N.C. 674, 545 S.E.2d 418 (2000); Allen v. Rupard,
100 N.C. App. 490, 397 S.E.2d 330 (1990).
Therefore we only address respondent’s contention that North Carolina
General Statutes, section 97-10.2(j) violates the Exclusive Emoluments Clause
of the North Carolina Constitution.
The Exclusive Emoluments Clause of the North Carolina
Constitution provides that “[n]o person or set of persons is entitled to
exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges from the community but in
consideration of public services.” N.C.
Const. art. I, §32 (2004). Our Supreme
Court has interpreted this Clause to provide that our
Legislature has
no power to compel or even to authorize a municipal corporation to pay a
gratuity to an individual to adjust a claim which the municipality is under no legal
obligation to pay. Nor may it lawfully
authorize a municipal corporation to pay gifts or gratuities out of public
funds.
Brown
v. Comrs. of Richmond County, 223 N.C. 744, 746, 28 S.E.2d 104, 105-06
(1943) (internal citations omitted); Leete v. County of Warren, 341 N.C.
116, 120, 462 S.E.2d 476, 479 (1995).
In Leete, our Supreme Court recognized that “[s]alary, pension,
insurance and similar benefits received by public employees are generally not
unconstitutional exclusive emoluments and privileges. They constitute compensation in consideration of services
rendered.” Leete, 341 N.C. at
121, 462 S.E.2d at 479. Our Supreme
Court further has stated that the benefits that deputy sheriffs receive
pursuant to the Workers’ Compensation Act are “conferred by reason of public
service,” and are not violative of the Exclusive Emoluments Clause of the North
Carolina Constitution. Towe v.
Yancey County, 224 N.C. 579, 580, 31 S.E.2d 754, 755 (1944).
Respondent argues that North Carolina General Statutes,
section 97-10.2(j) allows for petitioner to have a double recovery, in that he
is permitted to retain both the settlement proceeds, and the workers’
compensation benefits paid by respondent, thereby creating a windfall for
petitioner. Respondent contends that this
windfall, permitted by the extinguishment of respondent’s lien, is the aspect
of the statute that violates the Exclusive Emoluments Clause. We do not agree.
Our courts repeatedly have held that North Carolina General
Statutes, section 97-10.2(j) “allows plaintiff a double recovery at the expense
of the employer or carrier, in the discretion of the Superior Court judge. . .
. [S]ince the language is clear and unambiguous, we must hold that the
Legislature intended this possible result.”
Pollard v. Smith, 90 N.C. App. 585, 588, 369 S.E.2d 84, 86
(1988), rev’d on other grounds, 324 N.C. 424, 378 S.E.2d 771 (1989); see
also Wiggins v. Bushranger Fence Co., 126 N.C. App. 74, 77-78, 483
S.E.2d 450, 452, disc. review denied, 346 N.C. 556, 488 S.E.2d 825 (1997);
Allen, 100 N.C. App. at 493-94, 397 S.E.2d at 332-33. Given that our legislature and courts allow
for the possibility of double recovery by injured employees, and the fact that
workers’ compensation benefits provided to sheriff’s deputies pursuant to the
Workers’ Compensation Act are constitutional, we hold that North Carolina
General Statutes, section 97-10.2(j) does not violate the Exclusive Emoluments
Clause of the North Carolina Constitution.
We next turn our attention to respondent’s final assignment
of error that the trial court’s extinguishment of its lien was not supported by
sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law. This Court has held that although North Carolina General
Statutes, section 97-10.2(j) does grant the trial court “discretion” in
deciding to reduce or extinguish an employer’s lien on the employee’s
settlement with a third party, this discretion “is not unlimited.” In re Biddix, 138 N.C. App. at 504,
530 S.E.2d at 72 (citing Allen, 100 N.C. App. at 495, 397 S.E.2d at 333). In exercising its discretion, the trial
court must
“make a
reasoned choice, a judicial value judgment, which is factually supported . . .
[by] findings of fact and conclusions of law sufficient to provide for
meaningful appellate review.” Where the
trial court makes sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law, the due
process rights of the employer have been protected.
Id. (quoting Allen,
100 N.C. App. at 495, 397 S.E.2d at 333).
North Carolina General Statutes, section 97-10.2(j) provides that in
exercising its discretion, the trial judge
shall consider
the anticipated amount of prospective compensation the employer or workers’
compensation carrier is likely to pay to the employee in the future, the net
recovery to plaintiff, the likelihood of the plaintiff prevailing at trial or
on appeal, the need for finality in the litigation, and any other factors the
court deems just and reasonable, in determining the appropriate amount of the
employer’s lien.
N.C.
Gen. Stat. §97-10.2(j) (2004).
In the instant case, the trial court made the following
specific findings of fact:
3. The
liability insurance carrier for respondent Robertson, GMAC Insurance Company,
has tendered to petitioner an offer of the limits of its policy of liability
insurance coverage applicable to this incident, $30,000.00.
4. Petitioner
has purchased a policy of underinsured motorist coverage through State Farm
Insurance Company in the amount of $50,000.00.
State Farm Insurance Company has tendered the limits of its coverage
applicable to this incident, $20,000.00 . . . .
5. The
County of Durham, as employer of petitioner, has provided workers’ compensation
benefits in the form of payment of medical expenses which have been incurred
for the treatment of petitioner’s injuries and for compensation in the total
amount of $53,128.40.
. . . .
7. The
third party liability claim arising from the above-described vehicular
collision has been resolved by settlement and the total amount of payment to be
paid pursuant to said settlement is $50,000.00
8. As
a result of said collision, the petitioner suffered numerous serious and
painful injuries . . . . The petitioner
remained hospitalized for four days . . . and suffered a great deal of pain and
disability for several weeks and months following this collision.
9. Although
the petitioner returned to full duty in his capacity as a deputy sheriff with
the respondent on October 8, 2003, he has continued to experience pain,
weakness and other difficulties with the injuries which he has sustained. His orthopaedic surgeon has rendered
opinions that the petitioner is permanently injured in the amount of five
percent permanent partial impairment to his left wrist and twenty percent
permanent impairment to his back.
. . . .
11. The
petitioner has suffered further items of damage to which he is entitled to
recover against the negligent party who has caused his injury, including
payment of chiropractic expenses, payment of the remainder of his lost income
from the County of Durham, payment of his second employment income, calculated
in the amount of $3,996.00, and payment for pain and suffering already endured
and pain and suffering to be endured in the future.
12. The
negligent respondent, Elwanda S. Robertson, does not have sufficient assets to
pay further towards her liability to the petitioner for further damages
suffered by the petitioner which remain uncompensated.
13. That
$50,000.00 is an inadequate sum to compensate the petitioner, for said pain,
suffering and past, present and future interference of his life as result of
said injuries.
. . . .
15. The
court has further considered the fact that, without reduction of the
compensation lien of the employer, the net recovery to the petitioner would be
zero. The court has also considered the
likelihood that the petitioner . . . would prevail at a trial against the
negligent respondent and would recover a sum far in excess of the funds which
are available to pay for his damages.
16. The
court has also considered that there is now a need for finality in this
litigation, in that the petitioner has completed his active medical care and
has returned to full duty to [sic] employment with the respondent, and that all
sums which are available to pay for his damages have been received.
17. That
justice would be served in this case by extinguishing the employer’s
compensation lien so that the petitioner can be justly compensated for the
damages which he has suffered, for which he has received no compensation, for
the injuries which he sustained while in the course and scope of his employment
. . . [with] the County of Durham in his role as a deputy sheriff.
In its brief, respondent assigns error to almost all of the
trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, however respondent
failed to offer any argument in support of many of these assignments of error,
therefore those not addressed below are deemed abandoned. N.C. R. App. P. 28(b)(6) (2005). In its brief, respondent specifically
assigns error to, and properly preserves these for appellate review: the trial
court’s findings of fact numbers 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17, and conclusions of
law numbers 1, 2, and 3. We therefore
limit our review to these specific portions of the trial court’s order.
Respondent argues the trial court’s findings of fact are not
supported by competent evidence, and the court’s conclusions of law are thus
not supported by competent findings of fact.
When reviewing a trial court’s findings of fact, our role is to
determine “whether there was competent evidence to support the trial court’s
findings of fact and whether its conclusions of law were proper in light of
such facts.” Shear v. Stevens Bldg.
Co., 107 N.C. App. 154, 160, 418 S.E.2d 841, 845 (1992). “Findings of fact by the trial court in a
non-jury trial have the force and effect of a jury verdict and are conclusive
on appeal if there is evidence to support those findings.” Id. (citing Hunt v. Hunt, 85
N.C. App. 484, 355 S.E.2d 519 (1987)).
However, we review the trial court’s conclusions of law de novo. Id.
At the hearing, petitioner testified concerning the details
of the collision, the injuries he suffered, and his recovery following the
collision. He stated that he had
been diagnosed as having a five percent permanent partial disability in his
left wrist, and a twenty percent permanent partial disability in his back. He testified, without objection, that he
continues to experience pain in his wrist, shoulder, neck and back, and
continues to be limited in the activities in which he can participate. Petitioner further testified regarding visits
to a chiropractor for treatment of continuing stiffness in his neck and back,
which he began to experience once he returned to full duty. Petitioner also testified about his secondary
employment and the fact that he was unable to perform any secondary employment
while not on full duty after the accident.
He testified about the income he lost during this period, and submitted
documents he prepared showing his lost income as determined using his prior
years’ taxes, all of which was admitted into evidence without objection. On cross-examination, petitioner testified
that he and his retained counsel considered pursuing a third-party claim
against Elwanda Robertson, however she did not have any assets beyond her
insurance coverage. Petitioner stated
that although respondent has paid most of his medical bills and two-thirds of
his gross salary while he was out of work, he has not been compensated for the
remaining one-third of his salary, his lost wages from his secondary employment,
his expenses incurred in seeing the chiropractor, or for the pain and suffering
he has already experienced and continues to experience. All of petitioner’s testimony was admitted
without objection by respondent.
Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, along with
petitioner’s responses to respondent’s requests for admissions, we hold that
there is competent evidence in the record to support the trial court’s findings
of facts 8, 9, 11, 12, and 13. With
respect to finding of fact 15, the trial court was presented with evidence
showing that petitioner had received $50,000.00 in settlement proceeds, and
that respondent claimed a lien in the amount of $53,128.40. We therefore hold there was competent evidence
to support the finding that petitioner’s net recovery would be reduced to zero
without the extinguishment of respondent’s lien. Finding of fact 17 addresses the factors listed in North Carolina
General Statutes, section 97-10.2(j), and we hold there is sufficient evidence
to support the trial court’s finding.
Based on the foregoing discussion concerning sovereign
immunity and the constitutionality of North Carolina General Statutes, section
97-10.2(j), we hold the trial court’s conclusions of law regarding these issues
are supported by our State’s case law.
We further hold that based on the findings of fact, the trial court’s
conclusion of law stating that “justice requires that the workers’ compensation
lien of the County of Durham be extinguished” is supported by competent
findings of fact. We recognize that the
Workers’ Compensation Act creates a system in which an employee may receive a
“windfall,” however the trial court has made specific findings of fact showing
that this did not occur in the instant case.
We therefore hold the trial court did not abuse its
discretion in extinguishing respondent’s lien, and that the trial court
properly considered the relevant factors in applying the provisions of North
Carolina General Statutes, section 97-10.2(j) to petitioner’s case.
Affirm.
Judges McGEE and McCULLOUGH concur.
1. Petitioner
retained counsel to pursue a third party tort claim against defendant Elwanda
Robertson, and agreed to settle his claims against her for the limits of her
liability insurance, $30,000.00.
Petitioner had underinsured motorists coverage in the amount of
$50,000.00 per claimant, and he received $20,000.00 as a result of this
coverage. Defendant Robertson is not a
party to this appeal and this aspect of the case is not before us.