{ "id": 8412557, "name": "JEANETTE L. BASS, Employee, Plaintiff v. MORGANITE, INC., Employer, SELF-INSURED (GALLAGHER BASSET SERVICES, Servicing Agent), Defendant", "name_abbreviation": "Bass v. Morganite, Inc.", "decision_date": "2004-10-19", "docket_number": "No. COA04-57", "first_page": "605", "last_page": "612", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "166 N.C. App. 605" } ], "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": "599 S.E.2d 42", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12631464, 12631465, 12631466 ], "year": 2004, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/599/0042-03", "/se2d/599/0042-01", "/se2d/599/0042-02" ] }, { "cite": "358 N.C. 542", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 12631461, 12631462, 12631463, 12631465, 12631466, 12631467, 12631440, 12631414 ], "year": 2004, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/599/0040-02", "/se2d/599/0041-02", "/se2d/599/0041-01", "/se2d/599/0042-01", "/se2d/599/0042-02", "/se2d/599/0043-02", "/se2d/599/0038-01", "/se2d/598/0381-01" ] }, { "cite": "144 S.E.2d 272", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1965, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "274" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "265 N.C. 431", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8575582 ], "year": 1965, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "434" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/265/0431-01" ] }, { "cite": "593 S.E.2d 131", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "136" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "163 N.C. App. 257", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8916684 ], "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "264" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/163/0257-01" ] }, { "cite": "532 S.E.2d 522", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1999, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "350 N.C. 108", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 132282, 131930, 132234, 132199 ], "year": 1999, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/350/0108-02", "/nc/350/0108-04", "/nc/350/0108-03", "/nc/350/0108-01" ] }, { "cite": "509 S.E.2d 411", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "414" }, { "page": "414" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "349 N.C. 676", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 571666 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "681" }, { "page": "681" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/349/0676-01" ] }, { "cite": "301 S.E.2d 359", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "369-70" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "308 N.C. 85", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4707972 ], "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "101" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/308/0085-01" ] }, { "cite": "283 S.E.2d 101", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1981, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "304 N.C. 44", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8565283 ], "year": 1981, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/304/0044-01" ] }, { "cite": "270 S.E.2d 585", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "588" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "49 N.C. App. 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8519242 ], "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "6" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/49/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "458 S.E.2d 746", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "747", "parenthetical": "citing Hansel v. Sherman Textiles, 49 N.C. App. 1, 6, 270 S.E.2d 585, 588 (1980), rev'd on other grounds, 304 N.C. 44, 283 S.E.2d 101 (1981)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "119 N.C. App. 411", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11915575 ], "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "413", "parenthetical": "citing Hansel v. Sherman Textiles, 49 N.C. App. 1, 6, 270 S.E.2d 585, 588 (1980), rev'd on other grounds, 304 N.C. 44, 283 S.E.2d 101 (1981)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/119/0411-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 97-53", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "581 S.E.2d 750", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "754", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" }, { "page": "754" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "357 N.C. 228", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 491657 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "234", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" }, { "page": "234" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/357/0228-01" ] }, { "cite": "408 S.E.2d 729", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "731", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" }, { "page": "731" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "330 N.C. 93", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2510111 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "97", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" }, { "page": "97" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/330/0093-01" ] }, { "cite": "460 S.E.2d 321", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1995, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "340 N.C. 569", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 790215, 790222, 790226, 790197, 790075 ], "year": 1995, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/340/0569-02", "/nc/340/0569-05", "/nc/340/0569-04", "/nc/340/0569-01", "/nc/340/0569-03" ] }, { "cite": "456 S.E.2d 886", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "888" }, { "page": "888" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "118 N.C. App. 727", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11920912 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "730" }, { "page": "730" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/118/0727-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 678, "char_count": 16295, "ocr_confidence": 0.742, "pagerank": { "raw": 8.928683047576971e-08, "percentile": 0.5007967645990171 }, "sha256": "92b172d603788b78f40e2b8b469c80572d010073bc76fa9030173995a4e47359", "simhash": "1:b137de8276274840", "word_count": 2536 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:02:59.875915+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges BRYANT and LEVINSON concur." ], "parties": [ "JEANETTE L. BASS, Employee, Plaintiff v. MORGANITE, INC., Employer, SELF-INSURED (GALLAGHER BASSET SERVICES, Servicing Agent), Defendant" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "TYSON, Judge.\nJeanette Bass (\u201cplaintiff\u201d) appeals from an Opinion and Award entered by the Full Commission of the North Carolina Industrial Commission (\u201cthe Commission\u201d). The Commission found plaintiff failed to prove she contracted an occupational disease in connection with her job duties with Morganite, Inc. (\u201cdefendant\u201d). We affirm.\nI. Background\nThe findings of the Commission show plaintiff was employed by defendant as a carbon brush inspector for nine years beginning 23 March 1992. As a brush inspector, plaintiff was required to perform tests on carbon brush samples using various machines in the lab. Plaintiff testified she was responsible for cutting and grinding the parts and measuring them for density, hardness, and resistance. She testified her job required constant use of her hands and that she gripped the parts as she manipulated them. Plaintiff was required to lift up to fifteen pounds approximately twenty times a day. Plaintiff lifted up to one pound continuously throughout the day. She also lifted between fifty and seventy-five pounds between three and six times per week.\nOn 10 April 2000, plaintiff reported an injury to the plant nurse and complained she experienced pain in her right hand. Plaintiff stated the pain began on Saturday while she was attempting to open a sliding glass door at her son\u2019s house. Plaintiff was referred to neurologist Dr. Pamela Whitney (\u201cDr. Whitney\u201d). Dr. Whitney performed a nerve conduction study, which showed plaintiff suffered from mild carpal tunnel syndrome. Based solely upon plaintiffs description of her job duties, Dr. Whitney opined that it \u201cseems reasonable\u201d that plaintiff\u2019s carpal tunnel syndrome was caused by her job.\nOn 27 July 2000, Dr. Robert L. Allen (\u201cDr. Allen\u201d), a neurosurgeon, performed a carpal tunnel release on plaintiff\u2019s right hand. Plaintiff returned to work in October 2000 with restrictions to not perform heavy lifting.\nPlaintiff again left work in January 2001 and was provided medical leave and received one-half her salary for six months. On 15 January 2001, plaintiff sought treatment from Dr. Richard Alioto (\u201cDr. Alioto\u201d), an orthopedic surgeon, who examined both of plaintiff\u2019s wrists and diagnosed her with tendinitis. Dr. Alioto testified by deposition that plaintiff described the sliding door injury of April 2000 as the beginning of her carpal tunnel symptoms. In his opinion, this injury to her right wrist was \u201cwhere she developed what sounded to me like symptoms of carpal tunnel syndrome . . . .\u201d\nDr. Alioto provided a splint to plaintiff for her right wrist, limited her to lifting no more than five pounds. He also restricted her from performing repetitive type tasks. In March 2001, Dr. Alioto performed a \u201cPhalen\u2019s test\u201d on plaintiff\u2019s wrists, which showed normal results. Nerve conduction studies on plaintiff\u2019s left wrist revealed mild carpal tunnel syndrome. On 27 April 2001, he performed carpal tunnel release surgery on plaintiff\u2019s left wrist. Based upon plaintiff\u2019s description of her job duties, Dr. Alioto opined that plaintiff\u2019s employment \u201ccould have been\u201d a contributing factor of carpal tunnel syndrome and that plaintiff\u2019s employment placed her at a greater risk of developing carpal tunnel syndrome over the general public not so employed.\nWanda Dorman (\u201cDorman\u201d) worked with plaintiff and testified that she agreed with plaintiff\u2019s job duty description. However, Dorman testified that she did not hyper-extend or hyper-flex her wrist while performing the inspections and that holding the parts did not require \u201cmuch grip pressure.\u201d Teresa Sanders (\u201cSanders\u201d), another co-employee of plaintiff, testified that she had been employed with defendant as an inspector for five to six years. Sanders stated the tests performed by the inspectors are usually completed within approximately one hour. She also testified there are a variety of other activities that inspectors perform in addition to testing the parts.\nOn 9 January 2002, Dr. George S. Edwards (\u201cDr. Edwards\u201d), an expert in hand and wrist disorders, examined plaintiff\u2019s hands and diagnosed her with bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. He observed a video tape depicting an employee who demonstrated plaintiff\u2019s job duties in a similar, but slower, fashion. After viewing this video, Dr. Edwards opined that there was no causal relationship between plaintiff\u2019s job duties and her bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome.\nBased on these findings, the Commission denied compensation benefits and concluded plaintiff failed to prove by the greater weight of the evidence that she contracted the occupational disease of carpal tunnel syndrome as a result of her employment. Plaintiff appeals.\nII. Issues\nThe issues on appeal axe whether the Commission erred by: (1) concluding plaintiff failed to prove she suffers from an occupational disease due to causes and conditions characteristic of and peculiar to her employment as a brush inspector with defendant; (2) finding the videotape accurately depicted the primary duties of plaintiff\u2019s employment; (3) according more weight to the opinion of Dr. Edwards as opposed to plaintiff\u2019s treating physicians Dr. Alioto and Dr. Whitney; and (4) failing to find that plaintiff\u2019s bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome is compensable.\nIII. Standard of Review\nOn appeal from the Commission in a workers\u2019 compensation claim, our standard of review requires us to consider:\nwhether there is any competent evidence in the record to support the Commission\u2019s findings of fact and whether these findings support the Commission\u2019s conclusions of law. The findings of fact made by the Commission are conclusive upon appeal when supported by competent evidence, even when there is evidence to support a finding to the contrary. In weighing the evidence the Commission is the sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony and may reject a witness\u2019 testimony entirely if warranted by disbelief of that witness.\nPlummer v. Henderson Storage Co., 118 N.C. App. 727, 730, 456 S.E.2d 886, 888 (internal citations omitted), disc. rev. denied, 340 N.C. 569, 460 S.E.2d 321 (1995). \u201c[Wjhere no exception is taken to a finding of fact. . ., the finding is presumed to be supported by competent evidence and is binding on appeal.\u201d Koufman v. Koufman, 330 N.C. 93, 97, 408 S.E.2d 729, 731 (1991) (citation omitted).\nIV. Occupational Disease\nPlaintiff contends the Commission erred by failing to conclude plaintiff suffers from carpal tunnel syndrome as a result of her employment with defendant. We disagree.\nAn individual seeking benefits under the Workers\u2019 Compensation Act has the burden of proving each and every element of compens-ability. Holley v. ACTS, Inc., 357 N.C. 228, 234, 581 S.E.2d 750, 754 (2003) (citations omitted).\nUnder N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 97-53, in order for carpal tunnel syndrome to be deemed compensable as an \u201coccupational disease,\u201d plaintiff must prove: (1) the disease is characteristic of the trade or occupation; (2) the disease is not an ordinary disease of life to which the public is equally exposed outside of the employment; and (3) there is a causal connection between the disease and the employment. Thompson v. Tyson Foods, 119 N.C. App. 411, 413, 458 S.E.2d 746, 747 (1995) (citing Hansel v. Sherman Textiles, 49 N.C. App. 1, 6, 270 S.E.2d 585, 588 (1980), rev\u2019d on other grounds, 304 N.C. 44, 283 S.E.2d 101 (1981)). The \u201ccausal connection\u201d element determines whether the work environment \u201csignificantly contributed to, or was a significant causal factor in the disease\u2019s development.\u201d Rutledge v. Tultex Corp., 308 N.C. 85, 101, 301 S.E.2d 359, 369-70 (1983).\nHere, the Commission concluded plaintiff failed to satisfy her burden of proving that she \u201ccontracted the occupational disease of carpal tunnel syndrome due to causes and conditions which are characteristic of and peculiar to her occupation.\u201d Plaintiff argues \u201cno competent evidence exists to support a finding that plaintiff contracted her bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome any other way besides her employment with [defendant].\u201d This argument fails to recognize our standard of review. Plaintiff addresses her first assignment of error:\nThe Full Commission\u2019s Conclusion of Law reading that \u201cPlaintiff failed to prove by the greater weight of the evidence that shat [sic] she has contracted the occupation disease of carpal tunnel syndrome due to causes and conditions which are characteristic of and peculiar to her occupation\u201d on the basis that the only relevant and competent evidence in the record supports a finding that plaintiff has contracted the occupational disease carpal tunnel syndrome as a result of her job duties with Defendant....\nAs plaintiff only excepted to portions of the Commission\u2019s finding number nine, we review her assignment of error for whether the other findings of fact support the Commission\u2019s conclusion of law. See Koufman, 330 N.C. at 97, 408 S.E.2d at 731; Plummer, 118 N.C. App. at 730, 456 S.E.2d at 888.\nThe unchallenged findings show both of plaintiff\u2019s treating physicians, Dr. Whitney and Dr. Alioto, testified that plaintiff admitted her symptoms started with \u201cthe sliding door injury of April 2000.\u201d Dr. Alioto \u201copined that plaintiff\u2019s job with defendant could have been a contributing factor to plaintiff\u2019s contracting carpal tunnel syndrome.\u201d (Emphasis supplied). The Commission\u2019s findings show \u201cDr. Whitney opined that it \u2018seems reasonable\u2019 that plaintiff\u2019s carpal tunnel syndrome was caused by her job.\u201d (Emphasis supplied). Dr. Edwards testified as an expert in hand and wrist disorders and opined that \u201cthere was no causal relationship between plaintiff\u2019s job duties and her bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome.\u201d (Emphasis supplied). These findings are unchallenged and conclusive on appeal.\nThe Commission also found, \u201cThe opinions of Dr. Edwards on causation and increased risk are given greater weight than those of Drs. Alioto and Whitney.\u201d The Commission was not required to give plaintiff\u2019s expert witnesses\u2019 testimony more weight than that of Dr. Edwards. See infra Adams v. AVX Corp., 349 N.C. 676, 681, 509 S.E.2d 411, 414 (1998), reh\u2019g denied, 350 N.C. 108, 532 S.E.2d 522 (1999); see also Holley, 357 N.C. at 234, 581 S.E.2d at 754. The Commission\u2019s conclusion of law that plaintiff failed to prove she suffered an occupational disease as a result of her employment is supported by the findings of fact. This assignment of error is overruled.\nV. Videotape\nPlaintiff contends the Commission erred by finding the videotape submitted into evidence accurately depicted plaintiff\u2019s primary job duties. Plaintiff fails to cite any authority in support of her argument. This assignment of error is deemed abandoned. N.C.R. App. P. 28(b)(6) (2004); see also DOT v. Elm Land Co., 163 N.C. App. 257, 264, 593 S.E.2d 131, 136, disc. rev. denied, 358 N.C. 542, 599 S.E.2d 42 (2004).\nVI. Weight of Testimony\nPlaintiff argues the opinions of Dr. Alioto and Dr. Whitney should be given greater weight than Dr. Edwards\u2019s opinion. We disagree.\n\u201c[0]n appeal, this Court \u2018does not have the right to weigh the evidence and decide the issue on the basis of its weight. The court\u2019s duty goes no further than to determine whether the record contains any evidence tending to support the finding.\u2019 \u201d Adams, 349 N.C. at 681, 509 S.E.2d at 414 (1998) (quoting Anderson v. Lincoln Constr. Co., 265 N.C. 431, 434, 144 S.E.2d 272, 274 (1965)). Plaintiff\u2019s argument that the Commission should have afforded more weight to her treating physicians is without merit.\nThe Commission gave Dr. Edwards\u2019s opinions on causation and increased risk greater weight than the opinions of Dr. Alioto and Dr. Whitney. Dr. Edwards\u2019s testified that the aging process plays a part in carpal tunnel syndrome and that carpal tunnel syndrome is \u201cmuch more common\u201d in women. Dr. Edwards also testified to a reasonable degree of medical certainty \u201cthat there was not a relationship between [plaintiff\u2019s] job and her development of carpal tunnel syndrome.\u201d Dr. Edwards opined that plaintiff\u2019s age was \u201cthe chief factor resulting in her carpal tunnel syndrome.\u201d\nCompetent evidence supports the Commission\u2019s findings of fact and its decision to give greater weight to Dr. Edwards\u2019s testimony than to Dr. Alioto\u2019s and Dr. Whitney\u2019s testimony. Plaintiff failed to offer any authority to support her assertion that the videotape did not accurately depict her job duties.\nPlaintiff also argues her honesty and credibility require the Commission to accept her testimony regarding her job duties as true. Her argument is irrelevant to whether the Commission can afford more weight to one testifying physician over another. This assignment of error is overruled.\nVIL Conclusion\nPlaintiff also assigned error to the Commission\u2019s \u201cconclusion of law that \u2018plaintiff is not entitled to compensation under the Act.\u2019 \u201d Plaintiff argues \u201cthere is relevant and competent evidence that mandates a finding that plaintiffs bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome is compensable.\u201d Plaintiffs brief fails to present any authority in support of this broad assertion. This assignment of error is abandoned pursuant to N.C.R. App. P. 28(b)(6).\nThe Commission\u2019s findings of fact are supported by competent evidence in the record. These findings support the Commission\u2019s conclusions of law. The Opinion and Award of the Full Commission is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nJudges BRYANT and LEVINSON concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "TYSON, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Brent Adams & Associates, by Kristine Anisansel, for plaintiff - appellant.", "Brooks, Stevens & Pope, P.A., by Joy H. Brewer, for defendant-appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "JEANETTE L. BASS, Employee, Plaintiff v. MORGANITE, INC., Employer, SELF-INSURED (GALLAGHER BASSET SERVICES, Servicing Agent), Defendant\nNo. COA04-57\n(Filed 19 October 2004)\n1. Workers\u2019 Compensation\u2014 occupational disease \u2014 carpal tunnel syndrome\nThe Industrial Commission did not err in a workers\u2019 compensation case by finding that plaintiff employee failed to prove that she contracted an occupational disease of carpal tunnel syndrome in connection with her job duties with defendant company, because: (1) plaintiff failed to satisfy her burden, but instead merely argued that no competent evidence existed to support a finding that plaintiff contracted carpal tunnel syndrome any other way besides her employment with defendant; (2) the unchallenged findings show that both of plaintiffs treating physicians admitted her symptoms started with a sliding door injury at her son\u2019s house in April 2000; and (3) the Commission was not required to give the testimony of plaintiff\u2019s expert witnesses more weight than that of another doctor who was an expert in hand and wrist disorders.\n2. Appeal and Error\u2014 preservation of issues \u2014 failure to cite authority\nAlthough plaintiff contends the Industrial Commission erred in a workers\u2019 compensation case by finding that a videotape was an accurate depiction of the primary duties of plaintiff\u2019s employment, this assignment of error is deemed abandoned because plaintiff failed to cite any authority in support of her argument.\n3. Workers\u2019 Compensation\u2014 doctor testimony \u2014 weight of testimony\nThe Industrial Commission did not err in a workers\u2019 compensation case by according more weight to the opinion of a doctor who was an expert in hand and wrist disorders than the opinions of plaintiff\u2019s treating physicians, because: (1) competent evidence supported the Commission\u2019s findings of fact and its decision to give greater weight to the testimony of the one doctor; and (2) plaintiff\u2019s argument that her honesty and credibility require the Commission to accept her testimony regarding her job duties as true is irrelevant to whether the Commission can afford more weight to one testifying physician over another.\n4. Appeal and Error\u2014 preservation of issues \u2014 failure to cite authority \u2014 broad assertion\nAlthough plaintiff contends the Industrial Commission erred in a workers\u2019 compensation case by failing to find that plaintiff\u2019s bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome was compensable, this assignment of error is deemed abandoned under N.C. R. App. P. 28(b)(6) because plaintiff\u2019s brief fails to present any authority in support of this broad assertion.\nAppeal by plaintiff from opinion and award entered 29 September 2003 by Commissioner Bemadine S. Ballance. Heard in the Court of Appeals 23 September 2004.\nBrent Adams & Associates, by Kristine Anisansel, for plaintiff - appellant.\nBrooks, Stevens & Pope, P.A., by Joy H. Brewer, for defendant-appellee." }, "file_name": "0605-01", "first_page_order": 635, "last_page_order": 642 }