Payments made by the employer to the injured employee during the period of his disability, or to his dependents, which by the terms of this Article were not due and payable when made, may, subject to the approval of the Commission be deducted from the amount to be paid as compensation. Provided, that in the case of disability such deductions shall be made by shortening the period during which compensation must be paid, and not by reducing the amount of the weekly payment. Unless otherwise provided by the plan, when payments are made to an injured employee pursuant to an employer-funded salary continuation, disability or other income replacement plan, the deduction shall be calculated from payments made by the employer in each week during which compensation was due and payable, without any carry-forward or carry-back of credit for amounts paid in excess of the compensation rate in any given week. (1929, c. 120, s. 42; 1993 (Reg. Sess., 1994), c. 679, s. 3.7.)
Notes of Decisions
Foster v. W.-Elec. Co., 357 S.E.2d 670 (N.C. 1987).
· cites it 76× “We hold that defendant is entitled to a credit under N.C.G.S. § 97-42 and accordingly reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals.”
Evans v. At & T Tech., Inc., 418 S.E.2d 503 (N.C. 1992).
· cites it 75× “The first is whether the deduction allowed by N.C.G.S. § 97-42 from amounts to be paid as workers’ compensation entitles the defendant-employer AT&T to full credit for all disability benefits paid to the plaintiff-employee under AT&T’s Sickness and Accident Disability Plan.”
Effingham v. THE KROGER CO., 561 S.E.2d 287 (N.C. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 16× “*297 N.C. Gen.Stat. § 97-42 (1999). The rationale behind the statute is to encourage voluntary payments by the employer during the time of the worker's disability.”
Church v. Baxter Travenol Labs., Inc., 409 S.E.2d 715 (N.C. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 26× “2d 670 (1987), but then superimposes a different interpretation upon the language of N.C.G.S. § 97-42. Nothing in the Court's application of N.”
Thomas v. BF Goodrich, 550 S.E.2d 193 (N.C. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 41× “N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-42 . . . . 3. It would not be fair to make [P]laintiff repay the $15,195.”
Jenkins v. Piedmont Aviation Servs., 557 S.E.2d 104 (N.C. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 23× “” Under the Workers’ Compensation Act, the only statutes which allow the Commission to award credits are N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-42 (1999) and N.C. Gen.”
Estes v. North Carolina State Univ., 401 S.E.2d 384 (N.C. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 25× “On the first appeal of this case, this Court affirmed the award of workers’ compensation benefits to plaintiff but remanded for determination of the issue now before the Court on this appeal, namely, whether defendant is entitled pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 97-42 to a credit against…”
Moretz v. Richards & Assocs., Inc., 342 S.E.2d 844 (N.C. 1986).
· cites it 14× “In his findings of fact, the commissioner rejected defendants’ contention that they be allowed a credit under N.C.G.S. § 97-42 for compensation already paid to plaintiff for temporary total disability from 7 November 1975 through 25 October 1982.”
Clayton v. Mini Data Forms, Inc., 681 S.E.2d 544 (N.C. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 26× “The Commission concluded that “[t]he payment of wages by defendant-employer and of partial disability by defendant-carrier were due and payable when made and therefore, pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. §97-42 , defendants are not be [sic] entitled to a credit.”
Smith v. Richardson Sports Ltd. Partners, 616 S.E.2d 245 (N.C. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 34× “In order to determine whether the Panthers were entitled to a credit for the monies paid to plaintiff post-injury requires this Court to interpret and apply N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-42 . The application of this statutory provision in the context of a highly paid professional athlete…”
Lowe v. BE&K Constr. Co., 468 S.E.2d 396 (N.C. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 17× “Lowe, sustained a compensable injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with BE&K, (2) plaintiff’s cervical back condition and other conditions of the back were causally related to the accident, (3) plaintiff is disabled, and (4) defendants cannot…”
Christopher v. Cherry Hosp., 550 S.E.2d 256 (N.C. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 18× “N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-42 . *429 and Conclusion of Law No.”
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.