No compensation shall be payable if the injury or death to the employee was proximately caused by:
(1) His intoxication, provided the intoxicant was not supplied by the employer or his agent in a supervisory capacity to the employee; or
(2) His being under the influence of any controlled substance listed in the North Carolina Controlled Substances Act, G.S. 90-86, et seq., where such controlled substance was not by prescription by a practitioner; or
(3) His willful intention to injure or kill himself or another.
When the injury or death is caused by the willful failure of the employer to comply with any statutory requirement or any lawful order of the Commission, compensation shall be increased ten percent (10%). When the injury or death is caused by the willful failure of the employee to use a safety appliance or perform a statutory duty or by the willful breach of any rule or regulation adopted by the employer and approved by the Commission and brought to the knowledge of the employee prior to the injury compensation shall be reduced ten percent (10%). The burden of proof shall be upon him who claims an exemption or forfeiture under this section.
"Intoxication" and "under the influence" shall mean that the employee shall have consumed a sufficient quantity of intoxicating beverage or controlled substance to cause the employee to lose the normal control of his or her bodily or mental faculties, or both, to such an extent that there was an appreciable impairment of either or both of these faculties at the time of the injury.
A result consistent with "intoxication" or being "under the influence" from a blood or other medical test conducted in a manner generally acceptable to the scientific community and consistent with applicable State and federal law, if any, shall create a rebuttable presumption of impairment from the use of alcohol or a controlled substance. (1929, c. 120, s. 13; 1975, c. 740; 2005-448, s. 2.)
Notes of Decisions
Willey v. Williamson Produce, 562 S.E.2d 1 (N.C. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 72× “On 17 November 1997, William Henry Mullins (Mullins) died when his truck ran off the road and overturned during the course and in the scope of his employment with Williamson Produce.”
Hassell v. Onslow Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 661 S.E.2d 709 (N.C. 2008).
· cites it 10× “2d 598, 600 (1962) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see also N.C.G.S. § 97-12 (2007). Thus, except as expressly provided in the statute (as in section 97-12, which is not involved here), fault has no place in the workers' compensation system.”
Jenkins v. Easco Aluminum Corp., 541 S.E.2d 510 (N.C. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 12× “N.C.Gen.Stat. § 97-12 (1999) states that "[w]hen the injury or death is caused by the willful failure of the employer to comply with any statutory requirement or any lawful order of the Commission, compensation shall be increased ten percent (10%).”
Vogler v. Branch Erections Co., Inc., 640 S.E.2d 419 (N.C. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 56× “The present case is before this Court on appeal by both parties from the Commission's 27 July 2005 Opinion and Award which concluded: (1) the insurance policy between Branch and Reliance National Insurance Company provides for NCIGA to pay plaintiff the 10% increase in…”
Dodson v. Dubose Steel, Inc., 582 S.E.2d 389 (N.C. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 20× “In its second argument, Dubose contends the Commission erred pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-12 (3) in awarding death benefits to Dodson where his death was proximately caused by his own willful intent to injure or kill himself or another.”
Rorie v. Holly Farms Poultry Co., 295 S.E.2d 458 (N.C. 1982).
· cites it 9× “Inscoe interpreted the former G.S. 97-12. In 1977, the General Assembly passed an amendment to the Act which changed the language from a denial of compensation if the injury was “occasioned by” the claimant’s acts to a denial if the injury was “proximately caused by” claimant’s…”
Barrino v. Radiator Specialty Co., 340 S.E.2d 295 (N.C. 1986).
· cites it 12× “" [1] Accordingly, it is apparent that the legislature has specifically addressed this subject in the Act itself and has chosen to provide additional compensation when allegations such as the plaintiff has made in this case are proved in a claim made under the Act.”
Brown v. Kroger Co., 610 S.E.2d 447 (N.C. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 15× “Defendants first argue that the Full Commission erred by increasing the amount of plaintiff’s compensation by ten percent pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-12 . Defendants assert that there was no evidence that Kroger violated any statute warranting the increased award, and that…”
Anderson v. Century Data Sys., Inc., 322 S.E.2d 638 (N.C. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 9× “” G.S. 97-12 in pertinent part provides: No compensation shall be payable if the injury or death to the employee was proximately caused by: (1) His intoxication, provided the intoxicant was not supplied by the employer or his agent in a supervisory capacity to the employee; In…”
Inscoe v. DeRose Indus., Inc., 232 S.E.2d 449 (N.C. 1977).
· cites it 5× “At the time of the collision, G.S. 97-12 provided in relevant part as follows: “No compensation shall be payable if the injury or death was occasioned by the intoxication of the employee.”
Jenkins v. Easco Aluminum, 598 S.E.2d 252 (N.C. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 8× “On 27 August 1998, the Deputy Commissioner awarded plaintiff temporary total disability from the date of the release and increased plaintiff’s compensation by ten percent pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-12 (2003) for alleged safety violations committed by Easco.”
Hoyle v. Isenhour Brick & Tile Co., 293 S.E.2d 196 (N.C. 1982).
· cites it 4× “G.S. 97-12. The Court then affirmed the award of compensation, stressing that the purpose of the Worker's Compensation Act was "to eliminate the fault of the workman as a basis for denying recovery.”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-12(1) — 4 cases
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-12(2) — 3 cases
Willey v. Williamson Produce, 562 S.E.2d 1 (N.C. Ct. App. 2002).
“On 17 November 1997, William Henry Mullins (Mullins) died when his truck ran off the road and overturned during the course and in the scope of his employment with Williamson Produce.”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-12(3) — 5 cases
Rorie v. Holly Farms Poultry Co., 295 S.E.2d 458 (N.C. 1982).
“Inscoe interpreted the former G.S. 97-12. In 1977, the General Assembly passed an amendment to the Act which changed the language from a denial of compensation if the injury was “occasioned by” the claimant’s acts to a denial if the injury was “proximately caused by” claimant’s…”
Dodson v. Dubose Steel, Inc., 582 S.E.2d 389 (N.C. Ct. App. 2003).
“In its second argument, Dubose contends the Commission erred pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-12 (3) in awarding death benefits to Dodson where his death was proximately caused by his own willful intent to injure or kill himself or another.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.