{ "id": 8471079, "name": "BENNIE VEREEN, JUNIOR, Plaintiff v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, Defendant", "name_abbreviation": "Vereen v. North Carolina Department of Correction", "decision_date": "2005-02-15", "docket_number": "No. COA03-1720", "first_page": "588", "last_page": "591", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "168 N.C. App. 588" } ], "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": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 97-92", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(e)" }, { "page": "(a)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "128 S.E.2d 215", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1962, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "217" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "258 N.C. 166", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8559815 ], "year": 1962, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "168" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/258/0166-01" ] }, { "cite": "148 S.E.2d 554", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1966, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "559" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "267 N.C. 521", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8559782 ], "year": 1966, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "527" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/267/0521-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 97-13", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(c)" }, { "page": "(c)" }, { "page": "(c)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "478 S.E.2d 501", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "503" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "345 N.C. 128", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 53917 ], "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "131" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/345/0128-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 97-10.1", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "299 S.E.2d 618", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "625" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "307 N.C. 522", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8564079 ], "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "535" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/307/0522-01" ] }, { "cite": "590 S.E.2d 294", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "296" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "162 N.C. App. 106", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8915005 ], "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "108" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/162/0106-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 143-291", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(a)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 381, "char_count": 7177, "ocr_confidence": 0.759, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.375976296730096e-08, "percentile": 0.3369756306255693 }, "sha256": "1d6fea11e0fd3cc064f1d4ee9052d32c780759e43a3903ca77e57a70253e9d45", "simhash": "1:d92cd96418984636", "word_count": 1159 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:36:09.557360+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges CALABRIA and GEER concur." ], "parties": [ "BENNIE VEREEN, JUNIOR, Plaintiff v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, Defendant" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "MARTIN, Chief Judge.\nDefendant, the North Carolina Department of Correction, (NCDOC) appeals from an opinion and award of the North Carolina Industrial Commission. Plaintiff appeared pro se before the Deputy Commissioner and the Full Commission and did not file a brief in this Court.\nThe evidence before the Commission tended to show that plaintiff, Bennie Vereen, Jr., was incarcerated on 2 July 1997 at the Mitchell Correctional Institute (MCI). At the time plaintiff was incarcerated, he had no pre-existing back or knee problems. Plaintiff was paid one dollar a day for his work at MCI\u2019s clothing warehouse. When he arrived at work on 19 January 2000, he stepped into some cleaning solvent used to clean the floor, slipped and fell. Plaintiff experienced pain in his lower back and knee and was subsequently treated for a herniated disc at L5-S1 as well as a partially tom ACL. Despite six weeks of physical therapy, plaintiff continues to suffer symptoms and may have permanent partial disability.\nPlaintiff filed a claim for damages under the Tort Claims Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 143-291 et. seq. The case was heard before the Deputy Commissioner on 30 October 2002 and a decision and order was issued dismissing plaintiffs action with prejudice. Upon appeal to the Full Commission, the Commission concluded that because plaintiff was injured in the course of a NCDOC work assignment while a prisoner, the exclusive remedy for his injury was the Workers\u2019 Compensation Act and that he could file a claim for any continuing disability within one year of his release from prison. The Commission dismissed plaintiff\u2019s Tort Claims Act action with prejudice, but ordered NCDOC to file a Form 19, Employer\u2019s Report of Injury to Employee, with the Industrial Commission within 30 days from the date of the order. NCDOC appealed.\nThe sole question raised by NCDOC\u2019s appeal is whether the Commission had jurisdiction to order defendant to file a Form 19 Employer\u2019s Report of Injury to Employee. We hold that it did not and vacate such portion of the Commission\u2019s Opinion and Award.\n\u201c[T]he North Carolina Industrial Commission is not a court of general jurisdiction; the Commission is a quasi-judicial administrative board created by the legislature to administer the Workers\u2019 Compensation Act and has no authority beyond that provided by statute.\u201d Cornell v. Western & S. Life Ins. Co., 162 N.C. App. 106, 108, 590 S.E.2d 294, 296 (2004). The Commission is also vested with statutory jurisdiction to determine claims brought against the State pursuant to the Tort Claims Act. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 143-291(a) (2003); Guthrie v. State Ports Authority, 307 N.C. 522, 535, 299 S.E.2d 618, 625 (1983).\nPursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 97-10.1 and \u00a7 97-13(c), \u201cworkers\u2019 compensation is the exclusive remedy for prisoners working for the State.\u201d Richardson v. N. C. Dept. of Correction, 345 N.C. 128, 131, 478 S.E.2d 501, 503 (1996). N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 97-13(c) provides in pertinent part:\nWhenever any prisoner assigned to the State Department of Correction shall suffer accidental injury . . . arising out of and in the course of the employment to which he had been assigned, ... if the results of such injury continue until after the date of the lawful discharge of such prisoner to such an extent as to amount to a disability as defined in this Article, then such discharged prisoner... may have the benefit of this Article by applying to the Industrial Commission as any other employee; provided, such application is made within 12 months from the date of the discharge; and provided further that . . . the period of compensation shall relate to the date of his discharge rather than the date of the accident.\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 97-13(c) (2003). The statute provides that a prisoner, such as plaintiff here, may not file a workers\u2019 compensation claim until after he is released from prison, provided he is still suffering disability as a result of the accident. Only upon plaintiffs release can it be determined if plaintiff is entitled to workers\u2019 compensation under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 97-13(c). See Horney v. Pool Co., 267 N.C. 521, 527, 148 S.E.2d 554, 559 (1966).\nWith respect to a claim for benefits under the Worker\u2019s Compensation Act, \u201cthe jurisdiction of the Commission is invoked . . . when a claim for compensation is filed,\u201d Letterlough v. Atkins, 258 N.C. 166, 168, 128 S.E.2d 215, 217 (1962), and the Commission \u201cmay not ex mero motu institute a proceeding.\u201d Id. While N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 143-291 confers jurisdiction upon the Commission over plaintiff\u2019s action commenced pursuant to the Tort Claims Act, such jurisdiction is independent of the Commission\u2019s jurisdiction over claims governed by Chapter 97 of the General Statutes, the Workers\u2019 Compensation Act. Having dismissed plaintiff\u2019s tort claim, the Commission had no jurisdiction to ex mero motu enter an order with respect to any workers\u2019 compensation claim which plaintiff may have, because plaintiff cannot file such a claim until his release from custody with continuing disability resulting from his accident. Therefore, the Commission\u2019s order must be vacated. We note, however, that N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 97-92(e) imposes other sanctions for an employer\u2019s failure to file the report required by N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 97-92(a).\nThe portion of the Commission\u2019s Opinion and Award requiring defendant to file Form 19 is vacated.\nVacated.\nJudges CALABRIA and GEER concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "MARTIN, Chief Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "No brief for pro se plaintiff-appellee.", "Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Associate Attorney General, Iain M. Stauffer, for the State." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "BENNIE VEREEN, JUNIOR, Plaintiff v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, Defendant\nNo. COA03-1720\n(Filed 15 February 2005)\nTort Claims Act; Workers\u2019 Compensation\u2014 prisoner injured while doing work assignment \u2014 jurisdiction of Industrial Commission\nAfter dismissing plaintiff prisoner\u2019s action under the Tort Claims Act arising out of his injury received in the course of a North Carolina Department of Corrections work assignment, the Industrial Commission did not have jurisdiction to ex mero motu enter an order with respect to any workers\u2019 compensation claim which plaintiff may have, and the portion of the opinion and award ordering defendant to file a Form 19 Employer\u2019s Report of Injury to Employee form is vacated, because: (1) while N.C.G.S. \u00a7 143-291 confers jurisdiction upon the Commission over plaintiffs action commenced pursuant to the Tort Claims Act, such jurisdiction is independent of the Commission\u2019s jurisdiction over claims governed by Chapter 97 of the Workers\u2019 Compensation Act; (2) N.C.G.S. \u00a7 97-10.1 and \u00a7 97-13(c) provide that workers\u2019 compensation is the exclusive remedy for prisoners working for the State; and (3) N.C.G.S. \u00a7 9743(c) provides that a prisoner such as plaintiff may not file a workers\u2019 compensation claim until after he is released from prison provided he is still suffering disability as a result of the accident, and only upon plaintiff\u2019s release can it be determined if plaintiff is entitled to workers\u2019 compensation.\nAppeal by defendant from opinion and award entered 15 July 2003 by the North Carolina Industrial Commission. Heard in the Court of Appeals 6 December 2004.\nNo brief for pro se plaintiff-appellee.\nAttorney General Roy Cooper, by Associate Attorney General, Iain M. Stauffer, for the State." }, "file_name": "0588-01", "first_page_order": 618, "last_page_order": 621 }