Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
25 North Carolina opinions name it 3 courts 1999–2022 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by North Carolina courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
McRae v. Toastmaster, Inc.green2 sentences2022Id. at 493 , 597 S.E.2d at 699 . ¶ 19 The McRae Court adopted the Seagraves test: “to bar payment of benefits, an employer must demonstrate initially that: (1) the employee was terminated for misconduct; (2) the same misconduct would have resulted in the termination of a nondisabled employee; and (3) the termination was unrelated to the employee’s compensable injury.” Id. 2022Id. at 493 , 597 S.E.2d at 699 . ¶ 19 The McRae Court adopted the Seagraves test: “to bar payment of benefits, an employer must demonstrate initially that: (1) the employee was terminated for misconduct; (2) the same misconduct would have resulted in the termination of a nondisabled employee; and (3) the termination was unrelated to the employee’s compensable injury.” Id. | 8 | 14 |
Seagraves v. Austin Co. of Greensborogreen2 sentences2017"An employer's successful demonstration of ... evidence [that satisfies the initial part of the Seagraves test] is `deemed to constitute a constructive refusal' by the employee to perform suitable work, a circumstance that would bar benefits for lost earnings, ` unless the employee is then able to show that his or her inability to find or hold other employment ... at a wage comparable to that earned prior to the injury[ ] is due to the work-related disability.'" McRae v. Toastmaster, Inc., 358 N.C. 488 , 493-94, 597 S.E.2d 695 , 699 (2004) (quoting Seagraves, 123 N.C.App. at 234 , 472 S.E.2d a 2017"An employer's successful demonstration of ... evidence [that satisfies the initial part of the Seagraves test] is `deemed to constitute a constructive refusal' by the employee to perform suitable work, a circumstance that would bar benefits for lost earnings, ` unless the employee is then able to show that his or her inability to find or hold other employment ... at a wage comparable to that earned prior to the injury[ ] is due to the work-related disability.'" McRae v. Toastmaster, Inc., 358 N.C. 488 , 493-94, 597 S.E.2d 695 , 699 (2004) (quoting Seagraves, 123 N.C.App. at 234 , 472 S.E.2d a | 2 | 19 |
Chambers v. Transit Managementgreen2 sentences2022A. Standard of Review ¶ 13 “Appellate review of an award from the Industrial Commission is generally limited to two issues: (i) whether the findings of fact are supported by competent evidence, and (ii) whether the conclusions of law are justified by the findings of fact.” Chambers v. Transit Mgmt., 360 N.C. 609, 611 , 636 S.E.2d 553, 555 (2006), reh’g denied, 361 N.C. 227 , 641 S.E.2d 801 (2007). 2022A. Standard of Review ¶ 13 “Appellate review of an award from the Industrial Commission is generally limited to two issues: (i) whether the findings of fact are supported by competent evidence, and (ii) whether the conclusions of law are justified by the findings of fact.” Chambers v. Transit Mgmt., 360 N.C. 609, 611 , 636 S.E.2d 553, 555 (2006), reh’g denied, 361 N.C. 227 , 641 S.E.2d 801 (2007). | 2 | 2 |
Peoples v. Cone Mills Corp.green2 sentences2008Defendants argue that the Commission erred by "applying a Seagraves analysis." The Seagraves test, first articulated by this Court in Seagraves v. Austin Co. of Greensboro, 123 N.C.App. 228 , 472 S.E.2d 397 (1996), guides the Commission in deciding whether termination of an injured employee bars him from receiving disability benefits. "[T]he term `disability' in the context of workers' compensation is defined as the `incapacity because of injury to earn the wages which the employee was receiving at the time of injury in the same or any other employment.' N.C.G.S. § 97-2(9) [(2007).] Consequent 2008Defendants argue that the Commission erred by "applying a Seagraves analysis." The Seagraves test, first articulated by this Court in Seagraves v. Austin Co. of Greensboro, 123 N.C.App. 228 , 472 S.E.2d 397 (1996), guides the Commission in deciding whether termination of an injured employee bars him from receiving disability benefits. "[T]he term `disability' in the context of workers' compensation is defined as the `incapacity because of injury to earn the wages which the employee was receiving at the time of injury in the same or any other employment.' N.C.G.S. § 97-2(9) [(2007).] Consequent | 1 | 1 |
Hogan v. TERMINAL TRUCKING CO., INC.green2 sentences2008For example, in Hogan v. Terminal Trucking Co., 190 N.C. 2008For example, in Hogan v. Terminal Trucking Co., 190 N.C. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Chambers v. Transit Management
neutral
2 sentences2022A. Standard of Review ¶ 13 “Appellate review of an award from the Industrial Commission is generally limited to two issues: (i) whether the findings of fact are supported by competent evidence, and (ii) whether the conclusions of law are justified by the findings of fact.” Chambers v. Transit Mgmt., 360 N.C. 609, 611 , 636 S.E.2d 553, 555 (2006), reh’g denied, 361 N.C. 227 , 641 S.E.2d 801 (2007). 2022A. Standard of Review ¶ 13 “Appellate review of an award from the Industrial Commission is generally limited to two issues: (i) whether the findings of fact are supported by competent evidence, and (ii) whether the conclusions of law are justified by the findings of fact.” Chambers v. Transit Mgmt., 360 N.C. 609, 611 , 636 S.E.2d 553, 555 (2006), reh’g denied, 361 N.C. 227 , 641 S.E.2d 801 (2007). | 2 | 2022–2022 |
Walden v. Morgan
neutral
2 sentences2022A. Standard of Review ¶ 13 “Appellate review of an award from the Industrial Commission is generally limited to two issues: (i) whether the findings of fact are supported by competent evidence, and (ii) whether the conclusions of law are justified by the findings of fact.” Chambers v. Transit Mgmt., 360 N.C. 609, 611 , 636 S.E.2d 553, 555 (2006), reh’g denied, 361 N.C. 227 , 641 S.E.2d 801 (2007). 2022A. Standard of Review ¶ 13 “Appellate review of an award from the Industrial Commission is generally limited to two issues: (i) whether the findings of fact are supported by competent evidence, and (ii) whether the conclusions of law are justified by the findings of fact.” Chambers v. Transit Mgmt., 360 N.C. 609, 611 , 636 S.E.2d 553, 555 (2006), reh’g denied, 361 N.C. 227 , 641 S.E.2d 801 (2007). | 2 | 2022–2022 |
Hilliard v. Apex Cabinet Co.
green
2 sentences2017Hilliard, 305 N.C. at 595 , 290 S.E.2d at 683 . 2017Hilliard, 305 N.C. at 595 , 290 S.E.2d at 683 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Flores v. Stacy Penny Masonry Co.
green
2 sentences2008App. 452 , 518 S.E.2d 200 (1999), the Court upheld the Industrial Commission’s decision, which applied the Seagraves inquiry and found that plaintiff was not barred from receiving disability benefits after being terminated. 2008App. 452 , 518 S.E.2d 200 (1999), the Court upheld the Industrial Commission’s decision, which applied the Seagraves inquiry and found that plaintiff was not barred from receiving disability benefits after being terminated. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Johnson v. Southern Tire Sales and Service
green
2 sentences2008Defendants argue that the Commission erred by "applying a Seagraves analysis." The Seagraves test, first articulated by this Court in Seagraves v. Austin Co. of Greensboro, 123 N.C.App. 228 , 472 S.E.2d 397 (1996), guides the Commission in deciding whether termination of an injured employee bars him from receiving disability benefits. "[T]he term `disability' in the context of workers' compensation is defined as the `incapacity because of injury to earn the wages which the employee was receiving at the time of injury in the same or any other employment.' N.C.G.S. § 97-2(9) [(2007).] Consequent 2008Defendants argue that the Commission erred by "applying a Seagraves analysis." The Seagraves test, first articulated by this Court in Seagraves v. Austin Co. of Greensboro, 123 N.C.App. 228 , 472 S.E.2d 397 (1996), guides the Commission in deciding whether termination of an injured employee bars him from receiving disability benefits. "[T]he term `disability' in the context of workers' compensation is defined as the `incapacity because of injury to earn the wages which the employee was receiving at the time of injury in the same or any other employment.' N.C.G.S. § 97-2(9) [(2007).] Consequent | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Johnson v. Jones Group, Inc.
green
2 sentences2004Id. 2004Id. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.