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. COA05-445
NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS
Filed:
7 March 2006
TAMMY P. FROST,
Employee,
Plaintiff,
v. North
Carolina Industrial Commission
I.C.
File No. 182852
SALTER PATH FIRE & RESCUE,
Employer,
and
VOLUNTEER SAFETY WORKERS’
COMPENSATION FUND,
Carrier,
Defendants.
Appeals by plaintiff and defendants from opinion and award
entered 8 February 2005 by the North Carolina Industrial Commission. Heard in the Court of Appeals 17 November
2005.
Ward
and Smith, P.A., by S. McKinley Gray, III and William A. Oden, III, for
plaintiff.
Cranfill,
Sumner & Hartzog, L.L.P., by Jonathan C. Anders and Meredith T. Black, for
defendants.
HUDSON, Judge.
Plaintiff Tammy P. Frost, an employee of defendant Salter
Path Fire and Rescue (“Salter Path”), claimed an injury as a result of a
go-cart accident which occurred during a Fun Day event on 3 October 2001. Following a hearing on 31 March 2003 the deputy commissioner issued an opinion
and award on 29 April 2004, denying plaintiff’s claim for benefits. Plaintiff appealed, and on 8 February 2005,
the Full Commission issued an opinion and award unanimously reversing the
Deputy Commissioner’s opinion and award, and awarding plaintiff temporary total
disability benefits for her compensable injury. Defendants and plaintiff appeal.
As discussed below, we affirm.
Plaintiff was employed by Salter Path as a volunteer
emergency medical technician (“EMT”), eventually becoming captain of emergency
medical services (“EMS”). Plaintiff
also worked as a waitress at The Crab Shack in the Town of Salter Path. On 3 October 2001, plaintiff held an annual
Fun Day event at Lost Treasures Golf and Raceway. Salter Path sponsored and paid for the event and encouraged
volunteers to attend. The Chief of
Salter Path EMS encouraged plaintiff to attend in her capacity as captain of
EMS. Plaintiff planned to give a “pep”
speech to volunteers during the event, but was injured in a go-cart accident at
Lost Treasures. Plaintiff was
transported to the hospital and diagnosed with cervical strain and thoracic
strain and contusion. Plaintiff and her
husband testified, and she presented evidence from three of her treating
physicians.
The Full Commission made numerous findings of fact including
those challenged by defendants:
2. Plaintiff was injured at the Salter Path Fire and Rescue Fun Day on September 30, 2001. Fun Day was essentially an appreciation day, in which the community thanked volunteer firemen and rescue workers for their contribution and work in the community. The purpose for Fun Day was to boost morale and goodwill for Salter path volunteers, show appreciation for the unpaid volunteers of Salter path, and to help develop camaraderie among volunteers. Fun Day was initiated in 2000.
3. The Fun Day
event was put on by Salter Path Fire and Rescue Corporation and paid for out of
a Special Donations Fund, rather than out of the Department’s operating
budget. Salter Path Fire and Rescue
Corporation paid for the admission of volunteers and their families to Lost
treasures Golf and Raceway (“Lost Treasures”), the private amusement park where
Fun Day was held, and provided lunch to the participants while at Fun Day.
4. Fun Day was
a voluntary event, but Salter Path volunteers and their families were urged to
attend if possible. Many volunteers did
not attend. Those in attendance signed
in at the Treasure Island main window and were given passes for free rides and
a free lunch. One purpose of this
sign-in sheet was to allow Treasure Island to compute the total cost, according
to the discount ticket rates provided.
Another possible purpose was to give management of the fire and rescue
unit an attendance log. Notwithstanding
that attendance was voluntary, Salter Path did keep attendance for the
event. The employer received a tangible
benefit from this event in that it helped to improve morale of volunteers and
it provided an opportunity for leaders of the fire and rescue unit to encourage
volunteers to continue their participation as volunteers. The volunteers viewed Fun Day as a benefit
of their voluntary employment. The
Chief of Slater path, Ritchie Frost, told plaintiff that he wanted her to
attend Fun Day.
5. Plaintiff
and her husband then took the Salter Path Fire & rescue ambulance to
Treasure Island and proceeded inside to ride the go-carts. Plaintiff had signed in as “on duty” prior
to her injury and had intended to give a pep speech thanking the EMS volunteers
and encouraging their continued participation with Salter Path just as she had
done at the previous Fun Day.
We begin by noting the well-established standard of review
for worker’s compensation cases from the Industrial Commission. We do not assess credibility or re‑weigh
evidence; we only determine whether the record contains any evidence to support
the challenged findings. Adams v.
AVX Corp., 349 N.C. 676, 681, 509 S.E.2d 411, 414 (1998), rehearing denied,
350 N.C. 108, 532 S.E.2d 522 (1999).
This Court is “limited to reviewing whether any competent evidence
supports the Commission’s findings of fact and whether the findings of fact
support the Commission’s conclusions of law.” Deese v. Champion Int’l Corp., 352 N.C. 109, 116, 530 S.E.2d
549, 553 (2000).
Defendants first argue that the Commission erred in finding
and concluding that plaintiff sustained a compensable injury because the injury
did not arise out of and in the course of her employment. We do not agree.
Defendants challenge the Commission’s findings 2 through 5,
and the conclusions that plaintiff’s injury arose out of and in the course of
her employment. The Worker’s
Compensation Act provides compensation only for injuries “arising out of and in
the course of the employment.” N.C.
Gen. Stat. 97-2(6) (2003). This Court
has identified a list of relevant factors the Commission and Court may consider
when determining whether compensation is appropriate for an injury sustained
during an employer’s recreational event.
Chilton v. Bowman Gray School of Medicine, 45 N.C. App. 13, 15,
262 S.E.2d 347, 348 (1980). Chilton lists
several questions to consider in determining whether to award compensation:
(1) Did the
employer in fact sponsor the event?
(2) To what
extent was attendance really voluntary?
(3) Was there
some degree of encouragement to attend evidenced by such factors as:
a. taking a
record of attendance;
b. paying for
the time spent;
c. requiring
the employee to work if he did not attend; or
d. maintaining
a known custom of attending?
(4) Did the
employer finance the occasion to a substantial extent?
(5) Did the
employees regard it as an employment benefit to which they were entitled as of
right?
(6) Did the
employer benefit from the event, not merely in a vague way through better
morale and good will, but through such tangible advantages as having an
opportunity to make speeches and awards?
Id. at 15, 262
S.E.2d at 348 (internal citation omitted).
In applying these factors, the Commission here made findings, including
those quoted above, and after citing Chilton, concluded that the
evidence established affirmative answers to at least four of the six Chilton
factors.
Defendants contend that no competent evidence supported
finding 3, that Salter Path put on and paid for the Fun Day, because it was
funded by a special contribution fund rather than out of Salter Path’s regular
operating budget. However, three
witnesses testified without objection that Salter Path did sponsor the event and
defendants do not dispute that the volunteers’ admission to the event was paid
for by Salter Path’s special contribution fund. Because competent evidence supports this finding, it is
conclusive on appeal. This finding in
turn supports the portion of conclusion 3 stating that “Salter Path organized
and sponsored the Fun Day event.”
Defendants also contend that finding 4 is not supported by
competent evidence. Specifically,
defendants assert that volunteers were encouraged to attend the event, rather than
urged to attend. This distinction makes
no meaningful difference. In addition,
plaintiff’s undisputed testimony established that the Chief of Salter Path told
plaintiff he wanted her to attend the event.
Defendants claim that no evidence supports the finding that defendant
received a tangible benefit through morale boosting and increased volunteer
retention. Defendants draw our
attention to language in Chilton stating that
Personal
camaraderie and respect between the faculty and students involved in
professional education greatly enhance the educational experience. We cannot say that this vague benefit
transforms an annual social occasion into a business meeting.
Id. at 18, 262
S.E.2d at 350. Here, testimony
indicated and the Commission found as fact that the event served the purpose of
encouraging volunteers to continue their participation with defendant, not
merely of fostering personal camaraderie.
Without the continuing participation of volunteers, defendant here would
have no organization. Keeping the fire
and rescue organization operational with volunteers is tangible indeed. Thus, the benefits of building morale and
camaraderie are more tangible for a volunteer fire and rescue organization like
defendant than for the medical school in Chilton. This evidence supports finding 4 which in
turn supports the portion of conclusion 3 stating that
Plaintiff
justifiably believed that her attendance at Fun Day was mandatory . . . . Fun
Day was not really voluntary for Plaintiff due to the extra responsibility she
undertook and the request from the Chief that she attend.
The
finding also supports the portion of the conclusion stating that Slater Path
tangibly benefitted through increased volunteer retention.
Defendants also challenge the statement in finding 5 that
plaintiff was “on-duty” at the event, alleging that as a volunteer EMS worker,
plaintiff was always “on-duty.”
Defendants contend that “to the extent [finding 5] insinuates that
plaintiff’s status as ‘on-duty’ is relevant to this analysis, it is
unsupported.” We see no such
insinuation in the Commission’s opinion and award, nor do we find this relevant
to the Commission’s conclusion that plaintiff suffered a compensable injury.
The findings discussed above, which are supported by the
evidence, in turn support the Commission’s conclusion that at least four, if
not all six, of the Chilton factors are present here. We note that Chilton did not
establish a requirement that all six questions must be answered affirmatively
in order to support an award of compensation.
Rather, the Court found that “these questions are helpful in
establishing a structural analysis of when to award compensation.” Id. at 15, 262 S.E.2d at 348. This Court has affirmed that evidence of
four of the six Chilton factors “established a sufficient nexus between
claimant’s injury and her employment to permit the award of compensation.” Martin v. Mars Mfg. Co., 58 N.C. App.
577, 580, 293 S.E.2d 816, 819, cert. denied, 306 N.C. 742, 295 S.E.2d
759 (1982). This assignment of error is
overruled.
Defendants next argue that the Commission erred in making
findings and conclusions that plaintiff met her burden of proving
disability. We disagree.
The Supreme Court has explained what a plaintiff must prove
to obtain an award of benefits for disability.
Hilliard v. Apex Cabinet Co., 305 N.C. 593, 595, 290 S.E.2d 682,
683 (1982).
[I]n order to
support a conclusion of disability, the Commission must find: (1) that
plaintiff was incapable after his injury of earning the same wages he had
earned before his injury in the same employment, (2) that plaintiff was
incapable after his injury of earning the same wages he had earned before his
injury in any other employment, and (3) that this individual’s incapacity to
earn was caused by plaintiff’s injury.
In workers’ compensation cases, a claimant ordinarily has the burden of
proving both the existence of his disability and its degree.
Id. (internal
citation omitted). The burden is
on the employee to show that she is unable to earn the same wages she had
earned before the injury, either in the same employment or in other
employment. Id. at 595, 290
S.E.2d at 684 An employee may meet the Hilliard
burden in one of the following four ways:
(1) the
production of medical evidence that he is physically or mentally, as a
consequence of the work related injury, incapable of work in any employment;
(2) the production of evidence that he is capable of some work, but that he
has, after a reasonable effort on his part, been unsuccessful in his effort to
obtain employment; (3) the production of evidence that he is capable of some
work but that it would be futile because of preexisting conditions, i.e., age,
inexperience, lack of education, to seek other employment; or (4) the
production of evidence that he has obtained other employment at a wage less
than that earned prior to the injury.
Russell
v. Lowes Prod. Distribution, 108 N.C. App. 762, 765, 425 S.E.2d 454, 457
(1993) (internal citations omitted).
Here, Dr. Tellis gave his opinion, to a reasonable degree of
medical certainty, that the pain that plaintiff was complaining of and for
which he was treating her was related to her 30 September 2001 accident. He also testified to his unequivocal opinion that plaintiff’s
inability to perform her waitress position as indicated in the medical notes
was related to the 30 September 2001 accident.
Dr. Reece testified that he had last seen plaintiff 21 April 2003, and
that prior to that visit the accident required that she be out of work, but
could return with some restrictions as of that date. This evidence supports the Commission’s findings 27 and 28 that
plaintiff symptoms were caused by the injury during Fun Day and that those
symptoms prevented her from returning to work as a waitress. These findings in turn support the
Commission’s conclusion that plaintiff carried her burden of proving her
disability, at least up to 1 April 2003.
Plaintiff argues that the Commission erred in concluding
that her entitlement to temporary total disability benefits ended on 1 July
2002. We disagree.
Plaintiff contends that there was no evidence to support any
finding of fact which would support a conclusion that her total temporary
disability should be terminated on 21 April 2003. An employee seeking disability compensation bears the burden of
establishing the existence and extent of her disability. Hilliard, 305 N.C. at 595, 290 S.E.2d
at 683.
It is a well‑established
legal principle in North Carolina that once the disability is proven [by
the employee], there is a presumption that [the disability] continues until the
employee returns to work at wages equal to those [she] was receiving at the
time [her] injury occurred. In cases
involving the Watkins presumption, the claimant can meet the initial
burden of proving a disability in two ways: (1) by a previous Industrial
Commission award of continuing disability, or (2) by producing a Form 21 or
Form 26 settlement agreement approved by the Industrial Commission.
Cialino
v. Wal‑Mart Stores, 156 N.C. App. 463, 470, 577 S.E.2d 345, 350
(2003) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted) (emphasis in
original). Here, plaintiff does not
have a previous Industrial Commission award of continuing disability, or
a Form 21 or Form 26 settlement agreement approved by the Commission. Instead, she argues that the presumption
applies where she has been injured at work and has been unable to continue
working or find suitable alternative employment. In Cialino, the plaintiff argued that “a continuing
presumption of total disability arose because she was injured at work, and,
thereafter, she was unable to continue working or find suitable alternative
employment at the same wages and for same number of hours.” Id. at 471, 577 S.E.2d at 351. This Court rejected that argument. Id.; see also Clark v. Wal‑Mart,
360 N.C. 41, 619 S.E.2d 491 (2005).
Because the Watkins presumption does not apply here,
plaintiff was required to prove the extent and existence of her disability
pursuant to the factors in Hillard, supra. The Commission found and concluded
30. Plaintiff has
continued to present to Dr. Reese, seeing him on December 5 and 30, 2002,
January 30, 2003, February 25, 2003, March 3, 8, and 25, 2003, and April 21,
2003. According to Dr. Reece, plaintiff
improved during the December-through-April time period. Dr. Reece indicated in his April 21, 2003,
notes that plaintiff could perform sedentary activities at work.
31. The greater
weight of the evidence does not support a finding that plaintiff is now unable
to work by reason of her compensable injuries.
***
4. Plaintiff is
entitled to temporary total disability compensation at the rate of $413.33 for
those periods of time when she was unable to work for Salter Path by reason of
her compensable injuries. She was
unable to work by reason of her compensable injuries from September 30, 2001,
through April 21, 2003, when Dr. Reece found that she was capable of sedentary
work. Defendants are entitled to
credits for unemployment benefits in the amount of: $139.00 per week for a period of 17 weeks (December 29, 2001,
through May 4, 2002); $300.00 per week from the period of October 1, 2001
through October 28, 2001, in employer-sponsored disability benefits; and
$486.26 per week for the period of October 29, 2001, through July 12, 2002, in
employer-sponsored disability benefits.
These credits are week for week and dollar for dollar. N.C. Gen. Stat. §97-42.
Dr.
Reece released plaintiff to sedentary work with some restrictions as of 21
April 2003. Although Dr. Reece stated
that plaintiff would not be able to resume her full-time waitress job at that
date because of limitations on her activities, the record does not reflect that
she proved the extent to which she was unable to work after that time. Given this record, we cannot conclude that
the Commission’s findings or conclusion were erroneous. We overrule plaintiff’s cross-assignment of
error.
Affirmed.
Judge LEVINSON concurs.
Judge TYSON dissents in a separate opinion.
NO. COA05-445
NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS
Filed:
7 March 2006
TAMMY P. FROST,
Employee,
Plaintiff,
v. North
Carolina Industrial Commission
I.C.
File No. 182852
SALTER PATH FIRE & RESCUE,
Employer,
and
VOLUNTEER SAFETY WORKERS’
COMPENSATION FUND,
Carrier,
Defendants.
TYSON, Judge dissenting.
The majority’s opinion holds, “[g]iven this record, we
cannot conclude that the Commission’s findings or conclusions were erroneous”
and affirms the North Carolina Industrial Commission’s (“Commission”)
award. I respectfully dissent.
I. Background
Volunteers of the Salter Path Fire and Rescue (“department”)
were invited to attend a “fun day” at a local amusement park on 30 September
2001. Six volunteers attended the
event. Tammy P. Frost (“plaintiff”)
attended the event and was injured while riding a go-cart.
Plaintiff filed a worker’s compensation claim, and on 29
April 2004, the deputy commissioner concluded “[a]lthough the Plaintiff
suffered an injury by accident on September 30, 2001, her injury did not arise
out of and in the scope of her employment with the defendant-employer” and
denied plaintiff’s claim for benefits.
Plaintiff appealed. The Full
Commission reversed the deputy commissioner’s decision and awarded plaintiff
temporary total disability benefits for her compensable injury.
Plaintiff testified that her attendance at the event was
purely voluntary. Plaintiff admitted it
was not “frowned upon” if volunteers did not attend. Plaintiff also testified: (1) while she felt responsible to
attend the event as captain of the department, her attendance was not mandatory;
and (2) the department did not assign her any responsibilities at the event.
The event was paid for by community donations. When asked how volunteer members of the
department would benefit from fun day, plaintiff answered, “[t]he only way I
could say they could would be to keep morale up.”
II.
Standard of Review
Our review of a decision of the Commission is limited to two
issues:(1) whether any competent evidence in the record supports the
Commission’s findings of fact, and (2) whether such findings of fact support
the Commission’s conclusion of law. The Commission’s conclusions of law are
reviewable. Whether an injury arises out of and in the course of a claimant’s
employment is a mixed question of fact and law, and our review is thus
limited to whether the findings and conclusions are supported by the evidence.
Hunt
v.
Tender Loving Care Home Care Agency, Inc., 153 N.C. App. 266,
268, 569 S.E.2d 675, 677-78, disc. rev. denied, 356 N.C.
436, 572 S.E.2d 784 (2002) (emphasis supplied) (internal quotations and
citations omitted).
This Court has also stated,
The Commission
is the sole judge of the credibility of witnesses and may accept or reject any
of a claimant’s evidence. However, the Commission is required to make
specific findings as to the facts upon which a compensation claim is based,
including the extent of a claimant’s disability.
Grant
v.
Burlington Industries, Inc., 77 N.C. App. 241, 247, 335 S.E.2d
327, 332 (1985) (emphasis supplied).
On appeal to this Court, “[t]he Commission’s conclusions of
law are reviewed de novo.” McRae
v. Toastmaster, Inc., 358 N.C. 488, 496, 597 S.E.2d 695, 701
(2004).
III.
Conclusion of Law
The Workers’ Compensation Act provides, “‘[i]njury and
personal injury’ shall mean only injury by accident arising out of and in the
course of the employment.” N.C. Gen.
Stat. §97-2(6) (2005).
Our Supreme Court has stated, “the phrase ‘out of and in the
course of the employment’ embraces only those accidents which happen to a
servant while he is engaged in the discharge of some function or duty which he
is authorized to undertake and which is calculated to further, directly or
indirectly, the master’s business.” Sandy
v. Stackhouse, Inc., 258 N.C. 194, 198, 128 S.E.2d 218, 221
(1962) (internal quotations and citation omitted).
In Chilton v. Bowman Gray School of
Medicine, this Court identified six factors for the Commission and the
court to consider when determining whether a plaintiff’s injuries arose “out of
and in the course of her employment” to be compensable. 45 N.C. App. 13, 15, 262 S.E.2d 347, 348
(1980). The factors include:
(1) Did the
employer in fact sponsor the event?
(2) To what
extent was attendance really voluntary?
(3) Was there
some degree of encouragement to attend evidenced by such factors as:
a. taking a
record of attendance;
b. paying for
the time spent;
c. requiring
the employee to work if he did not attend; or
d. maintaining
a known custom of attending?
(4) Did the
employer finance the occasion to a substantial extent?
(5) Did the
employees regard it as an employment benefit to which they were entitled as of
right?
(6) Did the
employer benefit from the event, not merely in a vague way through better
morale and good will, but through such tangible advantages as having an
opportunity to make speeches and awards?
Id. (citation
omitted).
In Chilton, the plaintiff was injured while playing
volleyball at an annual voluntary picnic for medical school faculty. Id. at 18, 262 S.E.2d at 350. This Court reversed the Commission’s order,
which granted plaintiff’s claim, and held:
First . . .
sponsorship standing by itself would not indicate coverage.
Second,
attendance was voluntary. There was testimony from faculty members that they
felt they should go, but that they were not compelled to do so. The estimated
attendance of around 80% of the department indicates that there was no
compulsion.
Third, no
record of attendance was taken. The participants were not paid for the time
spent, nor was any employee required to work at the medical school if he did
not attend.
Fourth, the
picnic, while certainly an annual custom, was not an event that employee
regarded as being a benefit to which he was entitled as a matter of right.
Id. at 17, 262
S.E.2d at 350.
Here, in applying the Chilton factors, the Commission
concluded, “the evidence in the instant cause establishes affirmative answers
to at least four of the six Chilton questions, and arguably, all
six.” The Commission stated:
(1) Did the
employer in fact sponsor the event?
Yes. Salter Path organized and sponsored the Fun
Day event.
. . . .
(2) To what
extent was attendance really voluntary?
. . . .
Despite the
voluntary nature of Salter Path’s operations, Plaintiff justifiably believed
that her attendance at Fun Day was mandatory.
. . . .
(3) Was there
some degree of encouragement to attend?
Even the
defendant’s own witness, Taffie Baysden, testified that volunteers were
encouraged to attend if they could. In
addition, Ms. Baysden ultimately testified that there was a record of
attendance (which she previously had denied on direct). In fact, she acknowledged that the names of
attendees were recorded in Salter Path’s login book as well as a separate
sign-in sheet at the check-in window at [the park].
(4) Did
the employer finance the occasion to a substantial extent?
Yes. Salter Path paid for the event.
(5) Did the
employees regard it as an employment benefit to which they were entitled as of
right?
Yes. Fun Day was a benefit for the volunteers and
their families. If volunteers did not
keep their hours up, they could not attend.
(6) Did the
employer benefit from the event, not merely in a vague way through
better morale and good will, but through such tangible advantages as
having an opportunity to make speeches and awards?
Yes. . .
Plaintiff was going to make a speech to her EMS workers to thank them for their
participation and to encourage continued participation from these volunteers
within the department.
The Commission’s findings of fact do not support this
conclusion of law. Hunt at 271,
569 S.E.2d 679 (“The Commission erred in its application of the findings of
fact to its conclusions of law.”).
The Commission concluded the department “sponsored the Fun
Day event.” In finding of fact number
two, the Commission found that the event was “essentially an appreciation day,
in which the community thanked volunteer firemen and rescue workers for their
contribution and work in the community.”
The community, not the department, paid for and sponsored the event.
Under the second Chilton factor, the Commission
concluded plaintiff’s attendance at the event was mandatory. The Commission did not find attendance at
the event was mandatory. Plaintiff
testified attendance at the event was purely voluntary. Also, in finding of fact number three the
Commission found, “Fun Day was a voluntary event.”
Regarding the third Chilton factor, the Commission
concluded that attendance was encouraged, and the department maintained a
record of the volunteers who attended.
Even if attendance by the volunteers was taken at the event, undisputed
evidence reveals names were taken merely to compute costs to pay the amusement
park, rather than for any business purpose.
The Commission wholly failed to address the remaining factors under this
prong. Undisputed evidence shows the
volunteers: (1) were not compensated for attending the event; (2) were not
required to work if they failed to attend; and (3) there was no longstanding
custom of attending the event since this was only the second time the community
had sponsored the event.
The Commission’s conclusion that the department funded the
event is unsupported by the findings of fact.
In finding of fact number three, the Commission found the event was
“paid for out of a Special Donations Fund, rather than out of the Department’s
operating budget.” The event was paid
for with community donations. The
community, not the department, funded the event.
In its analysis of the fifth Chilton factor, the
Commission held the event was a benefit to employees who maintained certain
hours. This conclusion was not
supported by any findings of fact or any evidence. The Commission failed to find that only “active” volunteers were
permitted to take part in the event.
Plaintiff initially testified the active volunteers were
entitled as a matter of right to attend the event, but she later recanted her
statement and admitted the event was open to every volunteer. Gutierrez v. GDX Automotive,
169 N.C. App. 173, 178, 609 S.E.2d 445, 449, disc. rev. denied,
_ N.C. _, 619 S.E.2d 408 (2005). (“Without competent evidence, the
Commission’s conclusions are likewise unsupported and the opinion and award
must be reversed.”).
The Commission concluded the department benefitted from the
event because plaintiff planned to make a speech. Plaintiff testified her intent was simply to make an impromptu
comment regarding her appreciation for the volunteers’ work. She testified, “I try to thank my EMTs
anytime I can.” When asked if she had
any role at the event, she testified, “no.”
Plaintiff admitted the only way the department benefitted from the event
was “to keep morale up.” In finding of
fact number two, the Commission found, “[t]he purpose for Fun Day was to boost
the morale and goodwill of Salter Path volunteers.” In finding of fact number four, the Commission found, “[t]he
employer received a tangible benefit from this event in that it helped to
improve morale of volunteers.” The
Commission’s findings of fact do not support the notion that the department
benefitted in a tangible way from the event; rather, the department benefitted
“merely in a vague way through better morale and good will.” Chilton, at 18, 262 S.E.2d at
350. Upon de novo review of the
Commission’s conclusion of law, I find error in no competent evidence supports
some of the Commission’s findings of fact and in some cases undisputed evidence
is to the contrary. These unsupported
findings do not support the Commission’s conclusions of law. Id.
The Commission’s opinion and reward should be reversed.
IV.
Conclusion
Upon de novo review of the conclusions of law, the
Commission misapplied the Chilton factors to this case. The Commission’s third conclusion of law was
not supported by the findings of fact.
Plaintiff’s injury, which occurred at a purely voluntary event, did not
arise out of her employment as a volunteer for the department. N.C. Gen. Stat. §97-2(6). I vote to reverse the Commission’s
order. I respectfully dissent.