{ "id": 8412783, "name": "CHRISTINA SISK, Employee, Plaintiff v. TAR HEEL CAPITAL CORP., Employer, and COMPANION PROPERTY & CASUALTY GROUP, Carrier, Defendants", "name_abbreviation": "Sisk v. Tar Heel Capital Corp.", "decision_date": "2004-10-19", "docket_number": "No. COA04-45", "first_page": "631", "last_page": "637", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "166 N.C. App. 631" } ], "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": "188 S.E.2d 350", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1972, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "353-54" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "281 N.C. 234", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8574679 ], "year": 1972, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "238-39" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/281/0234-01" ] }, { "cite": "53 S.E.2d 668", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1949, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "672-73" }, { "page": "673" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "230 N.C. 428", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8630397 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1949, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "433-34" }, { "page": "434" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/230/0428-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 97-2", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(6)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "144 S.E.2d 3", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1965, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "4" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "265 N.C. 329", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8575220 ], "year": 1965, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "330" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/265/0329-01" ] }, { "cite": "379 S.E.2d 30", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1989, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "324 N.C. 373", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2483734 ], "year": 1989, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/324/0373-01" ] }, { "cite": "128 S.E.2d 218", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1962, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "221" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "258 N.C. 194", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8560002 ], "year": 1962, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "198" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/258/0194-01" ] }, { "cite": "97 S.E.2d 869", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1957, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "871" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "246 N.C. 214", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8625636 ], "year": 1957, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "217" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/246/0214-01" ] }, { "cite": "131 S.E.2d 308", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1963, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "311", "parenthetical": "emphasis supplied" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "259 N.C. 724", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8562493 ], "year": 1963, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "726-27", "parenthetical": "emphasis supplied" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/259/0724-01" ] }, { "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": "158 S.E.2d 569", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1968, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "571-72" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "272 N.C. 433", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8573243 ], "year": 1968, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "437" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/272/0433-01" ] }, { "cite": "136 S.E.2d 643", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1964, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "645" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "262 N.C. 272", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8566948 ], "year": 1964, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "274" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/262/0272-01" ] }, { "cite": "163 S.E. 576", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1932, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "577" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "202 N.C. 481", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8627178 ], "year": 1932, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "483-84" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/202/0481-01" ] }, { "cite": "565 S.E.2d 9", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "17" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "356 N.C. 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 1511222 ], "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "13" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/356/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "576 S.E.2d 316", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "319", "parenthetical": "citing Mann Media, Inc. v. Randolph Cty. Planning Bd., 356 N.C. 1, 13, 565 S.E.2d 9, 17 (2002)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "356 N.C. 642", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 1511442 ], "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "647", "parenthetical": "citing Mann Media, Inc. v. Randolph Cty. Planning Bd., 356 N.C. 1, 13, 565 S.E.2d 9, 17 (2002)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/356/0642-01" ] }, { "cite": "500 S.E.2d 86", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1998, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "347 N.C. 671", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 551329, 551235, 551326, 551111 ], "year": 1998, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/347/0671-03", "/nc/347/0671-04", "/nc/347/0671-02", "/nc/347/0671-01" ] }, { "cite": "491 S.E.2d 678", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "681" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "127 N.C. App. 529", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11798491 ], "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "534" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/127/0529-01" ] }, { "cite": "597 S.E.2d 695", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "701", "parenthetical": "citing Grantham v. R.G. Barry Corp., 127 N.C. App. 529, 534, 491 S.E.2d 678, 681 (1997)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "358 N.C. 488", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2986640 ], "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "496", "parenthetical": "citing Grantham v. R.G. Barry Corp., 127 N.C. App. 529, 534, 491 S.E.2d 678, 681 (1997)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/358/0488-01" ] }, { "cite": "233 S.E.2d 529", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "532" }, { "page": "532" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "292 N.C. 399", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8569857 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "403" }, { "page": "403" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/292/0399-01" ] }, { "cite": "346 S.E.2d 140", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1986, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "317 N.C. 334", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4780326, 4777709, 4778478, 4779983, 4776954 ], "year": 1986, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/317/0334-03", "/nc/317/0334-02", "/nc/317/0334-05", "/nc/317/0334-01", "/nc/317/0334-04" ] }, { "cite": "340 S.E.2d 116", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 6, "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "121" }, { "page": "124" }, { "page": "124" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "79 N.C. App. 483", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8521761 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "496" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/79/0483-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 769, "char_count": 13403, "ocr_confidence": 0.749, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.2035773128085846 }, "sha256": "d5b36a23dc36c52ce6b4734b160ef1366f95c11a5d0cfb324e63e997e8c9a092", "simhash": "1:3ff174a27f7668f6", "word_count": 2073 }, "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": [ "CHRISTINA SISK, Employee, Plaintiff v. TAR HEEL CAPITAL CORP., Employer, and COMPANION PROPERTY & CASUALTY GROUP, Carrier, Defendants" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "TYSON, Judge.\nChristina Sisk (\u201cplaintiff\u2019) appeals an Opinion and Award filed by the Full Commission of North Carolina Industrial Commission (\u201cCommission\u201d) finding plaintiff sustained an injury by accident occurring in the course of, but did not arise out of her employment. Tar Heel Capital Corporation (\u201cdefendant-employer\u201d) and Companion Property and Casualty Group (collectively, \u201cdefendants\u201d) filed cross-assignments of error arguing: (1) plaintiff\u2019s testimony concerning her employment conditions with defendant-employer lacked credibility; (2) plaintiff\u2019s injury did not occur in the course of her employment with defendant-employer; and (3) plaintiff has not been totally disabled since 16 August 2001. We affirm.\nI. Background\nPlaintiff began work for defendant-employer in July 1992. Defendant-employer operates a Wendy\u2019s Restaurant in Forest City, North Carolina. Plaintiff started as a crew employee and was promoted to shift supervisor in 1998. At both her initial hiring and subsequent promotion, defendant-employer presented plaintiff with documentation of defendant-employer\u2019s anti-harassment policy (the \u201cpolicy\u201d). The policy provided a procedure that employees should follow if they became victims of any form of harassment. Plaintiff signed acknowledgments of receipt of the policy on both occasions and took several quizzes testing her knowledge of the policy.\nIn March 2001, James Johnson (\u201cJohnson\u201d) became general manager of the restaurant where plaintiff worked as a shift supervisor. Johnson filed disciplinary notices against plaintiff on two separate occasions in May 2001. Plaintiff testified that around that time, Johnson began making sexually suggestive comments to her, touching her in inappropriate places, pulling her onto his lap, and placing his hand down her shirt. She testified Johnson\u2019s actions left bruises where he grabbed her.\nOn 17 July 2001, plaintiff gave notice of her resignation to Doug Kropelnicki (\u201cKropelnicki\u201d), the district manager, and Wanda Farmer (\u201cFarmer\u201d), director of human resources. Her notice included, \u201cI can no longer work with harassment at the hands of James Johnson.\u201d This was the first notice by plaintiff to defendant-employer of Johnson\u2019s behavior. Plaintiff acknowledged she had not followed defendant-employer\u2019s anti-harassment procedures.\nPlaintiff visited a family practice physician complaining of panic attacks on 18 July 2001. The physician prescribed medication to help with anxiety and wrote plaintiff a note to remain out of work until 23 July 2001.\nDefendant-employer conducted an investigation of Johnson\u2019s behavior and immediately suspended and eventually terminated his employment on 19 July 2001. That day, Tad Dolbier (\u201cDolbier\u201d), director of operations, called plaintiff and told her Johnson had been fired, and that he appreciated plaintiff as a valued employee. He asked why she did not follow the anti-harassment procedures. Plaintiff responded, \u201cI did not want to call and create a big stink,\u201d and \u201cif I acted like it wasn\u2019t happening, maybe it would stop.\u201d Dolbier concluded by informing plaintiff that due to her doctor\u2019s note, she was entitled paid leave until 23 July 2001. Plaintiff did not return to work.\nFarmer sent plaintiff a letter dated 30 July 2001 inquiring of her employment status. Farmer indicated plaintiff\u2019s job would remain open until 6 August 2001, but that her absences since 23 July 2001 would be unpaid. Farmer requested a phone call for an update. Plaintiff\u2019s attorney responded to Farmer\u2019s letter.\nPlaintiff contacted her family physician on 6 August 2001. She requested, but was denied, another note saying she could not return to work until 8 August 2001. Plaintiff next sought medical attention from Dr. Michael Knoelke (\u201cDr. Knoelke\u201d), a psychiatrist on 16 August 2001. Dr. Knoelke testified plaintiff complained of memories of Johnson\u2019s behavior that affected her ability to work and drive. Dr. Knoelke diagnosed plaintiff with post traumatic stress disorder including panic attacks and major depressive disorder. Plaintiff visited Dr. Knoelke on three occasions between September 2001 and May 2002. Each visit resulted in modifying her medication due to her varying levels of stress and depression.\nPlaintiff filed a Form 18 with the Commission on 20 August 2001 alleging she was \u201ccontinuously assaulted and harassed by her general manager, James Johnson, [and] she began having panic attacks . . . sought medical treatment . . . [and] has been unable to work.\u201d Plaintiff sought compensation from 16 July 2001 forward. Defendants denied plaintiffs claim on 10 September 2001. Plaintiff filed a Form 33 requesting her claim be assigned for hearing.\nThe deputy commissioner filed an Opinion and Award on 30 November 2002, which found that Johnson made sexually suggestive remarks, touched plaintiff inappropriately, pulled plaintiff onto his lap, placed his hand down her shirt, and had used his supervisory position to place plaintiff at risk. The deputy commissioner found plaintiff became emotionally upset, was diagnosed with post traumatic stress disorder including panic attacks and major depressive disorder, and currently received treatment from Dr. Knoelke. The deputy commissioner concluded as a matter of law that plaintiff suffered \u201can injury by accident\u201d and was \u201centitled to total disability [and] medical expenses incurred\u201d from 18 July 2001 until she returned to work, or by further order of the Commission. Defendants appealed to the Full Commission.\nThe Full Commission reviewed the case on 22 May 2003 and found the same facts as the deputy commissioner. The Full Commission added that \u201cbased on prior appellate decisions, the Full Commission must find as fact that plaintiff\u2019s injury did not arise out of the nature of her employment [and] [p]laintiff has also failed to show that she contracted an occupational disease . . . .\u201d Hogan v. Forsyth Country Club Co., 79 N.C. App. 483, 340 S.E.2d 116, disc. rev. denied, 317 N.C. 334, 346 S.E.2d 140 (1986); Gallimore v. Marilyn\u2019s Shoes, 292 N.C. 399, 403, 233 S.E.2d 529, 532 (1977).\nThe Commission\u2019s conclusions of law determined plaintiff \u201cestablished that she sustained an injury by accident occurring in the course of her employment with [defendant], but she failed to establish that her injury arose out of the employment.\u201d Specifically, the Commission stated, \u201csexual assaults are not deemed to be incident to or a natural and probable consequence of the employment under current law.\u201d Plaintiff\u2019s claim under the Worker\u2019s Compensation Act was denied. Plaintiff appeals.\nIl.Issues\nThe issues on appeal are whether: (1) an injury caused by sexual harassment properly falls within the jurisdiction of the Workers\u2019 Compensation Act (the \u201cAct\u201d); and (2) the Act covers injuries resulting from intentional assaults by co-employees.\nIII.Standard of Review\nWe review de novo the Commission\u2019s conclusions of law. McRae v. Toastmaster, Inc., 358 N.C. 488, 496, 597 S.E.2d 695, 701 (2004) (citing Grantham v. R.G. Barry Corp., 127 N.C. App. 529, 534, 491 S.E.2d 678, 681 (1997)), disc. rev. denied, 347 N.C. 671, 500 S.E.2d 86 (1998). \u201cUnder a de novo review, the court considers the matter anew and freely substitutes its own judgment for that of the Commission.\u201d In re Appeal of the Greens of Pine Glen Ltd. Part., 356 N.C. 642, 647, 576 S.E.2d 316, 319 (2003) (citing Mann Media, Inc. v. Randolph Cty. Planning Bd., 356 N.C. 1, 13, 565 S.E.2d 9, 17 (2002)).\nIV.Sexual Harassment and the Act\nPlaintiff argues sexual harassment and her resulting mental injury are compensable under the Act. We disagree.\nThe Act covers injuries sustained from risks incidentally and directly connected to that particular employment. Goodwin v. Bright, 202 N.C. 481, 483-84, 163 S.E. 576, 577 (1932). The injury is compensable if it arises out of and occurs in the course of employment. Perry v. Bakeries Co., 262 N.C. 272, 274, 136 S.E.2d 643, 645 (1964). The employee must be performing duties authorized by the employer in furtherance of the employer\u2019s business. Id.\n\u201cArises out of\u2019 refers to an injury that is a \u201cnatural and probable consequence\u201d of the employment. Clark v. Burton Lines, 272 N.C. 433, 437, 158 S.E.2d 569, 571-72 (1968). There must be some causal connection between the employment and the injury. Taylor v. Twin City Club, 260 N.C. 435, 438, 132 S.E.2d 865, 868 (1963); Cole v. Guilford County, 259 N.C. 724, 726-27, 131 S.E.2d 308, 311 (1963) (emphasis supplied). An injury occurring \u201cin the course of\u2019 employment happens when an employee is injured doing something reasonably expected of him or her at the time, place, and under the circumstances of the employment. Alford v. Chevrolet Co., 246 N.C. 214, 217, 97 S.E.2d 869, 871 (1957). The injury must be peculiar to the job and not a common threat to the public generally. Sandy v. Stackhouse, Inc., 258 N.C. 194, 198, 128 S.E.2d 218, 221 (1962). A similar issue arose in Hogan, 79 N.C. App. 483, 340 S.E.2d 116. An employee \u201cmade sexually suggestive remarks to [the plaintiff] while she was working, coaxing her to have sex with him[,] ... telling her that he wanted to \u2018take\u2019 her,... brushfed] up against her, rub [bed] [himself] against her buttocks, and touch[ed] her buttocks with his hands.\u201d Id. at 490, 340 S.E.2d at 121. This Court determined emotional injuries resulting from sexual harassment were not a \u201cnatural and probable consequence or incident of the employment.\u201d Id. at 496, 340 S.E.2d at 124. We held that sexual harassment is a risk the public generally is exposed to and is \u201cneither covered nor barred by the Act.\u201d Id.\nHere, plaintiff testified that Johnson made sexually suggestive remarks, pulled her onto his lap, placed his hand down her shirt, grabbed her buttocks, and pushed her against a wall and a table. Plaintiff attempts to distinguish Hogan as controlling precedent by contending her emotional injuries resulted from physical assaults not present in Hogan. We disagree. The facts in Hogan are clear that the plaintiff endured similar verbal and physical assaults as plaintiff at bar.\nWe are bound by prior decisions of this Court. In re Appeal from Civil Penalty, 324 N.C. 373, 379 S.E.2d 30 (1989). This assignment of error is overruled.\nV. Intentional Assaults under the Act\nPlaintiff asserts her emotional injuries caused by Johnson\u2019s intentional assaults are covered under the Act. We disagree.\nThe Act provides compensation for injuries resulting only from accidents. Lawrence v. Mill, 265 N.C. 329, 330, 144 S.E.2d 3, 4 (1965); N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 97-2(6) (2003). Our Supreme Court recognized that an assault may be classified as an accident if it is not expected or instigated by the employee. Withers v. Black, 230 N.C. 428, 433-34, 53 S.E.2d 668, 672-73 (1949). The assault must derive from dangers particular to the job and not common in everyday life. Gallimore, 292 N.C. at 403, 233 S.E.2d at 532; Withers, 230 N.C. at 434, 53 S.E.2d at 673. If the motive surrounding the assault is personal in nature and unrelated to the employment, resulting injuries are not covered by the Act. Robbins v. Nicholson, 281 N.C. 234, 238-39, 188 S.E.2d 350, 353-54 (1972).\nEvidence shows Johnson verbally and physically assaulted plaintiff with inappropriate conversation and uninvited touching while at work. Plaintiff, a shift supervisor, worked directly under Johnson, the general manager. Plaintiff suggests the danger leading to the assaults resulted from Johnson\u2019s position as plaintiffs superior. However, plaintiff fails to offer and the record is devoid of evidence indicating the assaults resulted from dangers particular to this job and should be imputed to the employer. There is no indication Johnson\u2019s conduct resulted from a dispute over employment issues or differed from harassment experienced in everyday life. Instead, the evidence suggests his motive and actions were entirely personal in nature. Johnson\u2019s actions were foul behavior against plaintiff, but it was separate from their common employment interests. This assignment of error is overruled.\nVI. Conclusion\nEmotional injuries resulting from sexual harassment are not compensable under the Act. Hogan, 79 N.C. App. at 496, 340 S.E.2d at 124. Plaintiff failed to prove the intentional assaults resulted from dangers particular to her position as shift supervisor of a restaurant. We affirm the Commission\u2019s denial of compensation to plaintiff. In light of our holding, we do not address defendants\u2019 assignments of error.\nAffirmed.\nJudges BRYANT and LEVINSON concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "TYSON, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "George W. Moore, for plaintiff-appellant.", "C. Michelle Sain, for defendants-appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "CHRISTINA SISK, Employee, Plaintiff v. TAR HEEL CAPITAL CORP., Employer, and COMPANION PROPERTY & CASUALTY GROUP, Carrier, Defendants\nNo. COA04-45\n(Filed 19 October 2004)\n1. Workers\u2019 Compensation\u2014 sexual harassment \u2014 not compensable\nEmotional injuries resulting from sexual harassment are not compensable under the Workers\u2019 Compensation Act.\n2. Workers\u2019 Compensation\u2014 sexual harassment \u2014 assault\u2014 not particular to job\nA supervisor\u2019s inappropriate conversations and uninvited touchings were not covered under the Workers\u2019 Compensation Act as an assault. The supervisor\u2019s conduct was not shown to result from dangers particular to plaintiff\u2019s work.\nAppeal by plaintiff from opinion and award entered 24 October 2003 by Commissioner Bemadine S. Ballance. Heard in the Court of Appeals 23 September 2004.\nGeorge W. Moore, for plaintiff-appellant.\nC. Michelle Sain, for defendants-appellees." }, "file_name": "0631-01", "first_page_order": 661, "last_page_order": 667 }