{
  "id": 8525693,
  "name": "EDGAR L. BRITT, Employee, Plaintiff v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CRIME CONTROL & PUBLIC SAFETY, Employer, SELF-INSURED, Defendant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Britt v. North Carolina Department of Crime Control & Public Safety",
  "decision_date": "1993-02-02",
  "docket_number": "No. 9110IC1267",
  "first_page": "777",
  "last_page": "780",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "108 N.C. App. 777"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "156 S.E. 917",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "year": 1931,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "918"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "200 N.C. 232",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8619229
      ],
      "year": 1931,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "234"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/200/0232-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "77 Stat. 135",
      "category": "laws:leg_session",
      "reporter": "Stat.",
      "year": 1963,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "adding subsection (d) to 10 U.S.C. 511"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 386,
    "char_count": 7054,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.744,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.163481972503012e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8634399148367338
    },
    "sha256": "46eb027f8aa04ad102b5e9487084a5e639072a981661be2989e18bf38a3e8f86",
    "simhash": "1:0ff9604f1ee2e6ff",
    "word_count": 1134
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:33:37.144077+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges WELLS and LEWIS concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "EDGAR L. BRITT, Employee, Plaintiff v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CRIME CONTROL & PUBLIC SAFETY, Employer, SELF-INSURED, Defendant"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "EAGLES, Judge.\nDefendant argues that the Industrial Commission erred by finding that plaintiff was an \u201cemployee\u201d under the Workers\u2019 Compensation Act. G.S. 97-1 At seq. We disagree and affirm.\nThe second sentence of G.S. 97-2(2) provides:\nThe term \u201cemployee\u201d shall include members of the North Carolina national guard, except when called into the service of the United States, and members of the North Carolina State guard, and members of these organizations shall be entitled to compensation for injuries arising out of and in the course of the performance of their duties at drill, in camp, or on special duty under orders of the Governor.\nDefendant argues that plaintiff is not covered under the Workers\u2019 Compensation Act because he was \u201ccalled into the service of the United States\u201d when he attended the mandatory initial training at Fort McClellan pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 511(d). We disagree and affirm the Industrial Commission\u2019s decision.\nThe second sentence of G.S. 97-2(2), supra, arose from an amendment to the statute in 1943. However, the federal mandatory initial training requirement arose from an amendment to 10 U.S.C. 511 in 1963. See Pub.L. 88-110, \u00a7 3, 77 Stat. 135 (1963) (adding subsection (d) to 10 U.S.C. 511). 10 U.S.C. 511(d) provides:\nUnder regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of Defense ... a non-prior-service person who is qualified for induction for active duty in an armed force and who is not under orders to report for induction into an armed force under the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C.App. 451 et seq.), except as provided in section 6(c)(2)(A)(ii) and (iii) of such Act, may be enlisted in the Army National Guard .... Each person enlisted under this subsection shall perform an initial period of active duty for training of not less than twelve weeks to commence insofar as practicable within 270 days after the date of that enlistment.\nTherefore, the issue before us is whether plaintiff was an employee of the State when he was injured at this mandatory initial training required by 10 U.S.C. 511(d) (which did not exist when the second sentence of G.S. 97-2(2) was written) and accordingly was entitled to compensation under the Workers\u2019 Compensation Act.\nOur Supreme Court has previously stated \u201cthat the National Guard is an organization of the State militia, which does not become-a part of the United States Army until the Congress declares an emergency to exist which calls for its services in behalf of the nation.\u201d Baker v. State, 200 N.C. 232, 234, 156 S.E. 917, 918 (1931). It is undisputed that this type of emergency situation did. not exist when plaintiff was ordered to initial training. Rather, plaintiff was required by federal statute to attend and successfully complete this initial training. Further, we note that it is a duty of a North Carolina National Guard member to perform this mandatory training when ordered. Accordingly, had plaintiff, a North Carolina National Guard member, disobeyed this order, he would have been subject to a court martial. See G.S. 127A-52 (jurisdiction of courts-martial of the national guard); G.S. 127A-53 (Manual for Courts-Martial); Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, Article 92 (one who fails to obey order or regulation \u201cshall be punished as a court-martial may direct\u201d).\nThe General Assembly amended G.S. 97-2(2) in 1943 to provide workers\u2019 compensation coverage to North Carolina National Guard members. Specifically, the legislature provided that .National Guard members \u201cshall be entitled to compensation for injuries arising out of and in the course of the performance of their duties at drill, in camp, or on special duties under orders of the Governor.\u201d We hold that this statutory language includes the period of \u201cinitial active duty for training\u201d that plaintiff was required to perform pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 511(d)..\nAt the time of his injury, plaintiff was a member of the National Guard. His injury arose out of and in the course of his employment with the National Guard. Accordingly, we affirm the Industrial Commission\u2019s opinion and award.\nAffirmed.\nJudges WELLS and LEWIS concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "EAGLES, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Bruce & Bryant, P.A., by R. Michael Bruce, for plaintiff-appellee.",
      "Attorney General Lacy H. Thornburg, by Assistant Attorney General William H. Borden, for defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "EDGAR L. BRITT, Employee, Plaintiff v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CRIME CONTROL & PUBLIC SAFETY, Employer, SELF-INSURED, Defendant\nNo. 9110IC1267\n(Filed 2 February 1993)\nMaster and Servant \u00a7 49.1 (NCI4th)\u2014 workers\u2019 compensation\u2014 National Guard member \u2014 employee of state\nA member of the National Guard receiving the initial training required by the federal government was an employee of the State, so that he was covered by the Workers\u2019 Compensation Act. The statutory language providing that National Guard members shall be entitled to compensation for injuries arising out of and in the course of the performance of their duties at drill, in camp, or on special duties under orders of the Governor includes the period of \u201cinitial active duty for training\u201d that plaintiff was required to perform pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 511(d). N.C.G.S. \u00a7 97-2(2).\nAm Jur 2d, Workers\u2019 Compensation \u00a7 181.\nAppeal from opinion and award of the North Carolina Industrial Commission filed by the Full Commission on 18 September 1991. Heard in the Court of Appeals 2 December 1992.\nOn 19 July 1989, a Deputy Commissioner of the Industrial Commission determined that plaintiff had suffered a compensable back injury from an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. The Deputy Commissioner made the following findings of fact: In August of 1986 plaintiff enlisted in the North Carolina National Guard (\u201cNational Guard\u201d). Because plaintiff had not previously served in the military, plaintiff was required to attend and successfully complete basic Army training camp pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 511(d). The National Guard had an \u201carrangement\u201d with the U.S. Army to provide the necessary initial training required by 10 U.S.C. 511(d). On 19 August 1986, plaintiff received orders from the Department of Defense directing that, \u201c[w]ith the consent of the Governor of North Carolina,\u201d he report to Fort McClellan, Alabama for initial active duty for training (IADT) from 2 January 1987 to 7 May 1987. On 12 January 1987, plaintiff injured his back during warfare training after jumping across a drag line ditch.\nOn 11 October 1990, the Deputy Commissioner reaffirmed his earlier opinion and awarded plaintiff compensation for temporary total disability at a rate of $308.00 per week for the period of 1 July 1988 to 19 June 1989. Additionally, plaintiff received \u201ccommencing immediately thereafter an additional 60 weeks of compensation at the same rate on account of his retained twenty (20%) percent permanent-partial disability.\u201d Defendant was ordered to pay \u201call reasonable and necessary medical expenses\u201d and expert witness fees. On 18 September 1991, the Full Commission affirmed and adopted the Deputy Commissioner\u2019s opinion and award as filed. Defendant appeals.\nBruce & Bryant, P.A., by R. Michael Bruce, for plaintiff-appellee.\nAttorney General Lacy H. Thornburg, by Assistant Attorney General William H. Borden, for defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0777-01",
  "first_page_order": 805,
  "last_page_order": 808
}
