{
  "id": 11916804,
  "name": "THOMAS EDWARD MILLS, SR. v. CITY OF NEW BERN, Self-Insured Employer, (GAB BUSINESS SERVICES, Servicing Agent)",
  "name_abbreviation": "Mills v. City of New Bern",
  "decision_date": "1996-04-16",
  "docket_number": "No. COA95-695",
  "first_page": "283",
  "last_page": "285",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "122 N.C. App. 283"
    }
  ],
  "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": "462 S.E.2d 490",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1995,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "341 N.C 712",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        793235
      ],
      "year": 1995,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/341/0712-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "442 S.E.2d 370",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "378"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "114 N.C. App. 506",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8527779
      ],
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "518"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/114/0506-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "17 S.E.2d 20",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1941,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "21"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "220 N.C. 246",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11301376
      ],
      "year": 1941,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "248"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/220/0246-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "117 S.E.2d 476",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1960,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "478"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "253 N.C. 554",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8626303
      ],
      "year": 1960,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "556"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/253/0554-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "269 S.E.2d 667",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1980,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "672"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "48 N.C. App. 489",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8551366
      ],
      "year": 1980,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "496"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/48/0489-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "63 S.E.2d 173",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1951,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "176"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "233 N.C. 88",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8599630
      ],
      "year": 1951,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "92-93"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/233/0088-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "132 S.E.2d 865",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1963,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "868"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "260 N.C. 435",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8575143
      ],
      "year": 1963,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "438"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/260/0435-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "95 S.E.2d 521",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1956,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "523"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "245 N.C. 173",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8607109
      ],
      "year": 1956,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "176"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/245/0173-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "306 N.C. 565",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8573122,
        8573110
      ],
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/306/0565-02",
        "/nc/306/0565-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "293 S.E.2d 196",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1982,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "198"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "306 N.C. 248",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8568137
      ],
      "year": 1982,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "251"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/306/0248-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 97-85",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 414,
    "char_count": 6707,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.733,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.3540980510622773e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6341738456566387
    },
    "sha256": "157b4e5fd8452bce92ab0f5d85ae37d38b54ed6c6dd83ccd50b79a7fd87cf169",
    "simhash": "1:5bf14c3db0b31378",
    "word_count": 1094
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:39:52.508825+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judge SMITH concurs.",
      "Judge LEWIS concurs in the result only."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "THOMAS EDWARD MILLS, SR. v. CITY OF NEW BERN, Self-Insured Employer, (GAB BUSINESS SERVICES, Servicing Agent)"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "GREENE, Judge.\nThe City of New Bern (defendant) appeals from a 4 April 1995 opinion and award of the Industrial Commission (Commission) which reversed the deputy commissioner\u2019s decision, and awarded Thomas Edward Mills, Sr. (plaintiff) worker\u2019s compensation benefits for a knee injury.\nIt is undisputed that plaintiff, a police officer for defendant, received an injury to his left knee while chasing a suspect on 15 May 1993. It is further undisputed that plaintiff had two earlier left knee injuries, one in 1985, which required surgery, and one in 1989. As a result of plaintiff\u2019s earlier knee injuries, he suffered \u201cknee plica, or, a fold in the lining of the knee,... medial scarring,... and patellar tendonitis [sic]\u201d in his left knee. Defendant denied plaintiff\u2019s worker\u2019s compensation claim for the 15 May 1993 left knee injury, stating that plaintiffs injury was \u201ccaused by an idiopathic condition, did not arise out of and in the course of his employment, and did not occur by accident.\u201d\nPursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 97-85, plaintiff appealed from the deputy commissioner\u2019s decision denying plaintiffs claim for compensation. The evidence before the Commission consisted of plaintiffs testimony that he did not remember twisting his foot or anything which would have made him fall. He also testified that the ground and the sidewalk were uneven at the point where plaintiff fell and that he surmised that he fell when stepping onto this uneven area. Dr. Robert G. Blair, Jr., plaintiffs treating physician, testified that plaintiffs fall could have been caused by his knee going out or by stepping on the uneven area, which may then have caused his knee to give out.\nThe Commission determined that \u201c[b]ecause risks attributable to plaintiffs employment, including running in the dark of night on uneven surfaces in pursuit of fleeing suspects, contributed to plaintiffs accident which resulted in the injury to plaintiffs knee, plaintiffs injury by accident also arose out of plaintiffs employment.\u201d \u201cThis is so even if an idiopathic condition - in this case, the alleged weakness in plaintiffs left knee - contributed to plaintiffs accident.\u201d The Commission finally awarded plaintiff \u201ctemporary total disability compensation for the periods of time during which plaintiff was unable to work.\u201d\nThe dispositive issue is whether the evidence in this record supports the determination of the Commission that the plaintiffs injury to his knee arose out of his employment.\nThe question of whether an injury \u201carises out of employment\u201d is a mixed question of law and fact and our review is limited to whether \u201cthe findings and conclusions are supported by competent evidence.\u201d Hoyle v. Isenhour Brick and Tile Co., 306 N.C. 248, 251, 293 S.E.2d 196, 198, reh\u2019g denied, 306 N.C. 565, \u2014 S.E.2d \u2014 (1982). If not supported by competent evidence, the award cannot be upheld. Horn v. Sandhill Furniture Co., 245 N.C. 173, 176, 95 S.E.2d 521, 523 (1956).\nAn injury arises out of the employment \u201cwhen it occurs in the course of the employment and is a natural and probable consequence or incident of it, so that there is some causal relation between the accident and the performance of some service of the employment.\u201d Taylor v. Twin City Club, 260 N.C. 435, 438, 132 S.E.2d 865, 868 (1963); N.C.G.S. \u00a7 97-2(6) (Supp. 1995).\nWhen the employee\u2019s idiopathic condition is the sole cause of the injury, the injury does not arise out of the employment. Vause v. Vause Farm Equip. Co., 233 N.C. 88, 92-93, 63 S.E.2d 173, 176 (1951). The injury does arise out of the employment if the idiopathic condition of the employee combines with \u201crisk[s] attributable to the employment\u201d to cause the injury. Hollar v. Montclair Furniture Co., 48 N.C. App. 489, 496, 269 S.E.2d 667, 672 (1980). It is not necessary that the \u201crisk attributable to the employment\u201d be a risk greater than that experienced by the general public. See Allred v. Allred-Gardner, Inc., 253 N.C. 554, 556, 117 S.E.2d 476, 478 (1960); 1 Arthur Larson, The Law of Workmen\u2019s Compensation \u00a7 6.40 (1995). In other words, if the employment \u201caggravated, accelerated, or combined with the [employee\u2019s preexisting] disease or infirmity to produce\u201d the injury, that injury arises out of the employment. Larson \u00a7 12.21. When the cause of the injury is in doubt or unknown, the injury is sustained in the course of the employment and the Commission determines that the injury arose out of the employment, the award must be sustained. Robbins v. Bossong Hosiery Mills, Inc., 220 N.C. 246, 248, 17 S.E.2d 20, 21 (1941); Murray v. Associated Insurers, Inc., 114 N.C. App. 506, 518, 442 S.E.2d 370, 378 (1994), rev\u2019d on other grounds, 341 N.C 712, 462 S.E.2d 490 (1995); Larson \u00a7 10.31(a) (\u201call injuries from neutral risks are compensable\u201d).\nIn this case, the cause of the injury is unknown. The plaintiff was unsure as to what caused him to fall, and Dr. Blair, the treating physician, was unable to identify the cause of the injury. Therefore, because there is no dispute that the injury occurred in the course of plaintiff\u2019s employment and because the Commission determined that the injury arose out of the employment, we are bound to affirm the award to the plaintiff. Even if the plaintiff\u2019s preexisting knee condition contributed to the injury, the plaintiff\u2019s fall while pursuing a fleeing suspect at night was a \u201crisk attributable\u201d to his employment and thus would be compensable.\nWe reviewed the other assignments of error asserted by the defendant and overrule them.\nAffirmed.\nJudge SMITH concurs.\nJudge LEWIS concurs in the result only.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "GREENE, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Voerman & Carroll, P.A., by David P. Voerman, for -plaintiff-appellee.",
      "Maupin Taylor Ellis & Adams, P.A., by Jack S. Holmes and Brian D. Lake, for defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THOMAS EDWARD MILLS, SR. v. CITY OF NEW BERN, Self-Insured Employer, (GAB BUSINESS SERVICES, Servicing Agent)\nNo. COA95-695\n(Filed 16 April 1996)\nWorkers\u2019 Compensation \u00a7 171 (NCI4th)\u2014 police officer\u2019s fall while pursuing suspect \u2014 injury arising out of employment\nBecause there was no dispute that plaintiff police officer\u2019s knee injury while chasing a suspect occurred in the course of his employment and because the Industrial Commission determined that the injury arose out of the employment, the Court of Appeals is bound to affirm the award to plaintiff; furthermore, even if plaintiffs preexisting knee condition contributed to the injury, plaintiffs fall while pursuing a fleeing suspect at night was a risk attributable to his employment and thus would be compensable.\nAm Jur 2d, Workers\u2019 Compensation \u00a7\u00a7 275, 276.\nAppeal by defendant from Opinion and Award for the Full Commission filed 4 April 1995. Heard in the Court of Appeals 19 March 1996.\nVoerman & Carroll, P.A., by David P. Voerman, for -plaintiff-appellee.\nMaupin Taylor Ellis & Adams, P.A., by Jack S. Holmes and Brian D. Lake, for defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0283-01",
  "first_page_order": 319,
  "last_page_order": 321
}