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.
7 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1996–2023 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Watkins v. Central Motor Lines, Inc.green2 sentences2023This presumption, known as the Watkins presumption, states that the disability continues each week until “the employee returns to work at wages equal to those he was receiving at the time his injury occurred.” Watkins v. Central Motor Lines, 279 N.C. 132, 137 , 181 S.E.2d 588, 592 (1971). 2023This presumption, known as the Watkins presumption, states that the disability continues each week until “the employee returns to work at wages equal to those he was receiving at the time his injury occurred.” Watkins v. Central Motor Lines, 279 N.C. 132, 137 , 181 S.E.2d 588, 592 (1971). | 3 | 5 |
In Re Stone v. G G Buildersgreen2 sentences2023Stone v. G&G Builders , 346 N.C. 154, 157 , 484 S.E.2d 365, 367 (1997). 2023Stone v. G&G Builders , 346 N.C. 154, 157 , 484 S.E.2d 365, 367 (1997). | 2 | 2 |
Nash v. Conrad Industries, Inc.green2 sentences1997See Nash v. Conrad Industries , 62 N.C. 1997See Nash v. Conrad Industries , 62 N.C. | 2 | 2 |
Saunders v. Edenton Ob/Gyn Centergreen2 sentences2023Three years after Saums, our Supreme Court in dicta quotes Saums and Kennedy, but suggests that the Watkins presumption also shifts the burden of proof to the employer: “Likewise, in order to rebut plaintiff’s claim of ongoing partial disability, in the event such issue arises, defendants have the burden of proving ‘not only suitable jobs are available, but also that the plaintiff is capable of getting one, taking into account both physical and vocational limitations.’ Saums [citation] (quoting Kennedy [citation].” Saunders v. Edenton Ob/Gyn Ctr., 352 N.C. 136, 141-42 , 530 S.E.2d 62, 66 (2000 2023Three years after Saums, our Supreme Court in dicta quotes Saums and Kennedy, but suggests that the Watkins presumption also shifts the burden of proof to the employer: “Likewise, in order to rebut plaintiff’s claim of ongoing partial disability, in the event such issue arises, defendants have the burden of proving ‘not only suitable jobs are available, but also that the plaintiff is capable of getting one, taking into account both physical and vocational limitations.’ Saums [citation] (quoting Kennedy [citation].” Saunders v. Edenton Ob/Gyn Ctr., 352 N.C. 136, 141-42 , 530 S.E.2d 62, 66 (2000 | 1 | 1 |
Cialino v. Wal-Mart Storesgreen2 sentences2005To avail herself of the Watkins presumption, a claimant must meet the initial burden of proving a disability in one of 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. 2005To avail herself of the Watkins presumption, a claimant must meet the initial burden of proving a disability in one of 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. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Radica v. Carolina Mills
green
2 sentences2003See e.g., Watkins, 279 N.C. at 137 , 181 S.E.2d at 592 (“If an award is made by the Industrial Commission, payable during disability, there is a presumption that disability lasts until the employee returns to work and likewise a presumption that disability ends when the employee returns to work at wages equal to those he was receiving at the time his injury occurred.”); Radica v. Carolina Mills, 113 N.C. 2003See e.g., Watkins, 279 N.C. at 137 , 181 S.E.2d at 592 (“If an award is made by the Industrial Commission, payable during disability, there is a presumption that disability lasts until the employee returns to work and likewise a presumption that disability ends when the employee returns to work at wages equal to those he was receiving at the time his injury occurred.”); Radica v. Carolina Mills, 113 N.C. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
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.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.