{ "id": 8954178, "name": "JIMMY LEWIS WATTS, Employee, Plaintiff v. HEMLOCK HOMES OF THE HIGHLANDS, INC., Employer, BUILDERS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Carrier, Defendants", "name_abbreviation": "Watts v. Hemlock Homes of the Highlands, Inc.", "decision_date": "2003-08-19", "docket_number": "No. COA02-1229", "first_page": "81", "last_page": "85", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "160 N.C. App. 81" } ], "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": "444 S.E.2d 252", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "254" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "115 N.C. App. 377", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 12129791 ], "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "380" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/115/0377-01" ] }, { "cite": "510 S.E.2d 674", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "\"An opinion and award that settles preliminary questions of compensability but leaves unresolved the amount of compensation to which the plaintiff is entitled and expressly reserves final disposition of the matter pending receipt of further evidence is interlocutory\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "132 N.C. App. 232", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11237437 ], "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "233", "parenthetical": "\"An opinion and award that settles preliminary questions of compensability but leaves unresolved the amount of compensation to which the plaintiff is entitled and expressly reserves final disposition of the matter pending receipt of further evidence is interlocutory\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/132/0232-01" ] }, { "cite": "282 S.E.2d 543", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "544", "parenthetical": "holding that an order is not final where the amount of compensation is not determined" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "54 N.C. App. 176", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8520930 ], "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "177-78", "parenthetical": "holding that an order is not final where the amount of compensation is not determined" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/54/0176-01" ] }, { "cite": "564 S.E.2d 245", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "247" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "150 N.C. App. 197", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9080608 ], "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "199" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/150/0197-01" ] }, { "cite": "547 S.E.2d 431", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2001, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "353 N.C. 398", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 135589, 135576, 135762, 135672, 135965 ], "year": 2001, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/353/0398-01", "/nc/353/0398-04", "/nc/353/0398-02", "/nc/353/0398-05", "/nc/353/0398-03" ] }, { "cite": "544 S.E.2d 1", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2001, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "141 N.C. App. 725", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9443368 ], "year": 2001, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/141/0725-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 462, "char_count": 8303, "ocr_confidence": 0.773, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.5165396641553477e-07, "percentile": 0.6685287443399209 }, "sha256": "2fb38d252919ebc1cd2a963120eaf006bf91bea9177c2a458b52b845365b3062", "simhash": "1:e14c8d8d1d79fa0f", "word_count": 1325 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:12:23.823025+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges TIMMONS-GOODSON and STEELMAN concur." ], "parties": [ "JIMMY LEWIS WATTS, Employee, Plaintiff v. HEMLOCK HOMES OF THE HIGHLANDS, INC., Employer, BUILDERS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Carrier, Defendants" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "HUDSON, Judge.\nPlaintiff, Jimmy Lewis Watts, was injured in his employment with defendant Hemlock Homes of the Highlands, Inc. (\u201cHemlock Homes\u201d) on 26 September 1995. On 6 October 1995, defendants executed an IC Form 60, recognizing plaintiff\u2019s right to compensation and noting an average weekly wage of $480.00, yielding a compensation rate of $320.01 per week. Defendant began making payments to plaintiff at that rate.\nOn 4 November 1995, plaintiff returned to work for Hemlock Homes and continued to work through 21 February 1996, at which time plaintiff underwent surgery on his shoulder. On 26 February 1996, defendants sent plaintiff a letter informing plaintiff that his average weekly wage was $244.73, not $480.00, and which generated a compensation rate of $161.16 per week. Subsequently, defendants began paying plaintiff compensation at the rate of $161.16 per week.\nOn 30 October 1998, plaintiff filed a motion along with the IC Form 60 in the Superior Court in Jackson County seeking an order to enforce the IC Form 60, which stated that plaintiff\u2019s average weekly wage was $480.00. On 19 July 1999, after hearing arguments, Judge J. Marlene Hyatt entered judgment ordering payment to plaintiff in the amount of $29,517.88, which represented the past compensation plaintiff would have received if paid at a compensation rate of $320.01 per week, and ordered defendants to continue paying plaintiff ongoing compensation, consistent with IC Form 60, at the rate of $320.01 per week.\nDefendant appealed this order to this Court, which vacated the order, holding that the superior court exceeded its jurisdiction by entering judgment and forcing payment of an amount of compensation when such an amount was in dispute. Watts v. Hemlock Homes of the Highlands, Inc., 141 N.C. App. 725, 544 S.E.2d 1, disc. review denied, 353 N.C. 398, 547 S.E.2d 431 (2001).\nOn 17 February 1999, defendants filed an IC Form 24 seeking to terminate plaintiffs compensation, contending that plaintiff had been working and building houses since 26 January 1996. On 18 March 1999, a Form 24 hearing was held before Special Deputy Commissioner Gina Cammarano. On 25 March 1999, Special Deputy Cammarano entered an order stating that the Commission was unable to reach a decision. Subsequently, on 4 May 1999, Special Deputy Cammarano ordered defendants to immediately reinstate plaintiffs temporary total disability compensation. On 12 May 1999, defendants filed an IC Form 33 to request a hearing on both the 25 March 1999 and 4 May 1999 orders.\nThe matter was thereafter set for hearing before Deputy Commissioner George T. Glenn, II. Following several hearings, on 31 October 2000, Deputy Glenn ordered that the compensation rate should be paid pursuant to the IC Form 60 in the amount of $320.02 [sic] per week.\nDefendants appealed to the Full Commission alleging that plaintiff has worked, and continues to work, as a carpenter, general contractor, and boom truck operator. The Full Commission affirmed and modified Deputy Commissioner Glenn\u2019s order, finding that plaintiff returned to work as of 31 March 2000. The Full Commission, however, remanded the case for a hearing before a Deputy Commissioner on the issues of \u201cplaintiffs average weekly wage at the time of plaintiffs compensable injury by accident and plaintiffs resultant weekly compensation rate.\u201d\nDefendants now appeal to this Court arguing (1) that the Commission erred in determining that plaintiff was temporarily totally disabled from 21 February 1996 through 31 March 2000; (2) that the Commission applied an incorrect standard for determining plaintiffs period of disability; (3) that the Commission failed to make material findings of fact; and (4) the Commission\u2019s findings of fact and conclusions of law are insufficient for this Court to determine the rights of the parties to this controversy. However, for the following reasons, we dismiss this appeal as interlocutory.\nAn appeal from an opinion and award of the Industrial Commission is subject to the \u201csame terms and conditions as govern appeals from the superior court to the Court of Appeals in ordinary civil actions.\u201d G.S. \u00a7 97-86 (2001). Parties have a right to appeal any final judgment of a superior court. G.S. \u00a7 7A-27 (2001). Therefore, an appeal as of right can arise only from a final order of the Industrial Commission. Ratchford v. C.C. Mangum, Inc., 150 N.C. App. 197, 199, 564 S.E.2d 245, 247 (2002).\n\u201cA final judgment is one that determines the entire controversy between the parties, leaving nothing to be decided in the trial court.\u201d Id. We have said that \u201c[a]n opinion and award of the Industrial Commission is interlocutory if it determines one but not all of the issues in a workers\u2019 compensation case.\u201d Id; see also Fisher v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours, 54 N.C. App. 176, 177-78, 282 S.E.2d 543, 544 (1981) (holding that an order is not final where the amount of compensation is not determined). Moreover, while we recognize that a workers\u2019 compensation claim may continue under an open award for many weeks or even years, an opinion and award that on its face contemplates further proceedings or which does not fully dispose of the pending stage of the litigation is interlocutory. See Riggins v. Elkay Southern Corp., 132 N.C. App. 232, 233, 510 S.E.2d 674 (1999) (\u201cAn opinion and award that settles preliminary questions of compensability but leaves unresolved the amount of compensation to which the plaintiff is entitled and expressly reserves final disposition of the matter pending receipt of further evidence is interlocutory\u201d).\nHere, the Commission\u2019s opinion and award specifically reserved the issue of the amount of plaintiff\u2019s compensation award pending a hearing to determine plaintiff\u2019s average weekly wage at the time of his compensable injury. Although the opinion determined that plaintiff suffered a compensable injury by accident, the total amount of compensation has yet to be determined, and the average weekly wage is in dispute. There being nothing in the record to indicate that the parties have resolved this issue independently after the Commission entered its opinion, this appeal is clearly interlocutory.\nWe note that Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(b)(4) requires the appellant to include in its brief to this Court a \u201cstatement of grounds for appellate review. . . . When an appeal is interlocutory, the state-merit must contain sufficient facts and argument to support appellate review on the ground that the challenged order affects a substantial right.\u201d Further, it is well established that the appellant bears the burden of making such a showing to the court, and that it is not up to the court to construct the grounds for the parties. Jeffreys v. Raleigh Oaks Joint Venture, 115 N.C. App. 377, 380, 444 S.E.2d 252, 254 (1994). The appellant\u2019s brief here contains no statement of the grounds for appellate review, and no discussion of any basis for review of this interlocutory order.\nAppeal dismissed.\nJudges TIMMONS-GOODSON and STEELMAN concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "HUDSON, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "No brief filed for plaintiff-appellee.", "Lewis & Roberts, P.L.L.C., by John H. Ruocchio and Timothy S. Riordan, for defendant-appellants." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "JIMMY LEWIS WATTS, Employee, Plaintiff v. HEMLOCK HOMES OF THE HIGHLANDS, INC., Employer, BUILDERS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Carrier, Defendants\nNo. COA02-1229\n(Filed 19 August 2003)\nAppeal and Error\u2014 appealability \u2014 interlocutory order \u2014 workers\u2019 compensation award\nDefendants\u2019 appeal in a workers\u2019 compensation case is dismissed as an appeal from an interlocutory order and there is no immediate right of appeal, because: (1) an opinion and award that on its face contemplates further proceedings or which does not fully dispose of the pending stage of the litigation is interlocutory, and the opinion in this case specifically reserved the issue of the amount of plaintiff\u2019s compensation award pending a hearing to determine plaintiffs average weekly wage at the time of his com-pensable injury; and (2) defendants\u2019 brief contains no statements of the grounds for appellate review and no discussion of any basis for review of this interlocutory order as required by N.C. R. App. P. 28(b)(4).\nAppeal by defendants from opinion and award entered 7 May 2002 by the North Carolina Industrial Commission. Heard in the Court of Appeals 21 May 2003.\nNo brief filed for plaintiff-appellee.\nLewis & Roberts, P.L.L.C., by John H. Ruocchio and Timothy S. Riordan, for defendant-appellants." }, "file_name": "0081-01", "first_page_order": 111, "last_page_order": 115 }