{
  "id": 8320194,
  "name": "LEIGH ANN CHAVIS, Employee-Plaintiff v. TLC HOME HEALTH CARE, Employer-Defendant, and PHARMACISTS' MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Carrier-Defendant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Chavis v. TLC Home Health Care",
  "decision_date": "2005-08-16",
  "docket_number": "No. COA04-1454",
  "first_page": "366",
  "last_page": "386",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "172 N.C. App. 366"
    }
  ],
  "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": "549 S.E.2d 580",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2001,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "586",
          "parenthetical": "employee's failure to provide written notice within thirty days did not bar his claim when his employer had actual notice of the injuries on the date they occurred"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "145 N.C. App. 1",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11434995
      ],
      "year": 2001,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "11",
          "parenthetical": "employee's failure to provide written notice within thirty days did not bar his claim when his employer had actual notice of the injuries on the date they occurred"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/145/0001-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "532 S.E.2d 207",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2000,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "214",
          "parenthetical": "reasonable excuse found because employee did not know nature and character of injury where doctors originally told him he had a heart attack, not a herniated disk"
        },
        {
          "page": "214"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "138 N.C. App. 593",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11080920
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2000,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "603-04",
          "parenthetical": "reasonable excuse found because employee did not know nature and character of injury where doctors originally told him he had a heart attack, not a herniated disk"
        },
        {
          "page": "604"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/138/0593-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "582 S.E.2d 271",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2003,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "reasonable excuse because employer knew of injury where employee was injured on employer's aircraft, employer filed an incident report, and employee saw employer's doctor within the thirty days following the injury"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "357 N.C. 251",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        491425,
        491717,
        491463,
        491561,
        491405,
        491797,
        491611,
        491775
      ],
      "year": 2003,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "reasonable excuse because employer knew of injury where employee was injured on employer's aircraft, employer filed an incident report, and employee saw employer's doctor within the thirty days following the injury"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/357/0251-03",
        "/nc/357/0251-04",
        "/nc/357/0251-01",
        "/nc/357/0251-07",
        "/nc/357/0251-08",
        "/nc/357/0251-05",
        "/nc/357/0251-02",
        "/nc/357/0251-06"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "573 S.E.2d 703",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 2002,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "706"
        },
        {
          "page": "706",
          "parenthetical": "\"Possible prejudice occurs where the employer is not able to provide immediate medical diagnosis and treatment with a view to minimizing the seriousness of the injury and where the employer is unable to sufficiently investigate the incident causing the injury.\""
        },
        {
          "page": "706",
          "parenthetical": "the defendants failed to assert how they were prejudiced by a delay in written notification"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "155 N.C. App. 169",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        9249365
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 2002,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "173"
        },
        {
          "page": "173"
        },
        {
          "page": "173"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/155/0169-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "355 S.E.2d 158",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1987,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "160"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "85 N.C. App. 589",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        12170193
      ],
      "year": 1987,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "592"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/85/0589-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "404 S.E.2d 165",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1991,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "166",
          "parenthetical": "quoting Lawton v. County of Durham, 85 N.C. App. 589, 592, 355 S.E.2d 158, 160 (1987)"
        },
        {
          "page": "166"
        },
        {
          "page": "167"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "103 N.C. App. 73",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8519554
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1991,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "75",
          "parenthetical": "quoting Lawton v. County of Durham, 85 N.C. App. 589, 592, 355 S.E.2d 158, 160 (1987)"
        },
        {
          "page": "75"
        },
        {
          "page": "76"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/103/0073-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "218 S.E.2d 510",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1975,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "511"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "27 N.C. App. 276",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8552744
      ],
      "year": 1975,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "278"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/27/0276-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 97-22",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 2004,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "\"[U]nless reasonable excuse is made to the satisfaction of the Industrial Commission . . .\""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "342 S.E.2d 798",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1986,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "809"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "316 N.C. 426",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4704100
      ],
      "year": 1986,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "444"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/316/0426-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "456 S.E.2d 847",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1995,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "850",
          "parenthetical": "\"[E]vidence of an employer's refusal to allow an employee to return to work because there was no 'light' work available supports a finding that the employee was not capable of earning wages in the same employment.\" (citation omitted)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "118 N.C. App. 624",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11920169
      ],
      "year": 1995,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "628",
          "parenthetical": "\"[E]vidence of an employer's refusal to allow an employee to return to work because there was no 'light' work available supports a finding that the employee was not capable of earning wages in the same employment.\" (citation omitted)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/118/0624-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "398 S.E.2d 677",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1990,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "682"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "101 N.C. App. 24",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8527213
      ],
      "year": 1990,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "33"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/101/0024-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "441 S.E.2d 145",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "149"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "114 N.C. App. 69",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8527096
      ],
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "73"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/114/0069-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "181 S.E.2d 588",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "279 N.C. 132",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8565922
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/279/0132-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "451 S.E.2d 12",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "14",
          "parenthetical": "quoting Watkins v. Cent. Motor Lines, Inc., 279 N.C. 132, 181 S.E.2d 588 (1971)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "117 N.C. App. 440",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8525676
      ],
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "443",
          "parenthetical": "quoting Watkins v. Cent. Motor Lines, Inc., 279 N.C. 132, 181 S.E.2d 588 (1971)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/117/0440-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "290 S.E.2d 682",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1982,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "683"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "305 N.C. 593",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8572767
      ],
      "year": 1982,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "595"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/305/0593-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "425 S.E.2d 454",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1993,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "108 N.C. App. 762",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8525626
      ],
      "year": 1993,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/108/0762-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 97-29",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "year": 2004,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "547 S.E.2d 17",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2001,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "full Commission properly included the value of the plaintiff's hotel room provided to him in lieu of wages"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "353 N.C. 381",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        135848,
        135570,
        135571,
        135636
      ],
      "year": 2001,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "full Commission properly included the value of the plaintiff's hotel room provided to him in lieu of wages"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/353/0381-03",
        "/nc/353/0381-02",
        "/nc/353/0381-04",
        "/nc/353/0381-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "535 S.E.2d 577",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2000,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "582"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "140 N.C. App. 58",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        12121612
      ],
      "year": 2000,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "66"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/140/0058-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "17 S.E.2d 20",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1941,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "220 N.C. 246",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11301376
      ],
      "year": 1941,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/220/0246-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "44 S.E.2d 77",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1947,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "227 N.C. 684",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8627387
      ],
      "year": 1947,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/227/0684-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "38 S.E.2d 97",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1946,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "226 N.C. 325",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8618886
      ],
      "year": 1946,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/226/0325-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "63 S.E.2d 173",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1951,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "176"
        },
        {
          "page": "179"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "233 N.C. 88",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8599630
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1951,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "92-93"
        },
        {
          "page": "96"
        },
        {
          "page": "96"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/233/0088-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "259 S.E.2d 786",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1979,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "788"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "43 N.C. App. 748",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8554559
      ],
      "year": 1979,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "750"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/43/0748-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "167 S.E.2d 790",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1969,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "794",
          "parenthetical": "the plaintiff's death occurred \"in the course\" of his employment where, although going to see yachts was a personal detour, once he began to proceed to dinner he \"had abandoned his personal sight-seeing mission\" and was back within the scope of his employment"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "5 N.C. App. 37",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8547975
      ],
      "year": 1969,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "43-44",
          "parenthetical": "the plaintiff's death occurred \"in the course\" of his employment where, although going to see yachts was a personal detour, once he began to proceed to dinner he \"had abandoned his personal sight-seeing mission\" and was back within the scope of his employment"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/5/0037-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "287 S.E.2d 890",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "305 N.C. 292",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8567713
      ],
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/305/0292-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "281 S.E.2d 718",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1981,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "721"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "53 N.C. App. 766",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8523603
      ],
      "year": 1981,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "770"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/53/0766-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "486 S.E.2d 478",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1997,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "483"
        },
        {
          "page": "483",
          "parenthetical": "the plaintiff's injury occurred \"in the course\" of his employment when on his way to work the plaintiff stopped off for a drink but had resumed his travel to work when the accident occurred"
        },
        {
          "page": "483"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "126 N.C. App. 547",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11712005
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1997,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "556"
        },
        {
          "page": "557"
        },
        {
          "page": "557"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/126/0547-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "322 S.E.2d 648",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1984,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "652"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "71 N.C. App. 532",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8525856
      ],
      "year": 1984,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "536-37"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/71/0532-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "364 S.E.2d 417",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1988,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "420"
        },
        {
          "page": "420"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "321 N.C. 350",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2566796
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1988,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "354"
        },
        {
          "page": "354"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/321/0350-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "233 S.E.2d 529",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1977,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "531"
        },
        {
          "page": "533"
        },
        {
          "page": "532",
          "parenthetical": "citations omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "292 N.C. 399",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8569857
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1977,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "402"
        },
        {
          "page": "404"
        },
        {
          "page": "404"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/292/0399-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "386 S.E.2d 174",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1989,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "citing Gallimore v. Marilyn's Shoes, 292 N.C. 399, 402, 233 S.E.2d 529, 531 (1977)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "325 N.C. 702",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2488046
      ],
      "year": 1989,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "citing Gallimore v. Marilyn's Shoes, 292 N.C. 399, 402, 233 S.E.2d 529, 531 (1977)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/325/0702-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "377 S.E.2d 777",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1989,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "780",
          "parenthetical": "citing Gallimore v. Marilyn's Shoes, 292 N.C. 399, 402, 233 S.E.2d 529, 531 (1977)"
        },
        {
          "page": "781",
          "parenthetical": "emphasis omitted"
        },
        {
          "page": "781"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "93 N.C. App. 242",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8527997
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1989,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "247",
          "parenthetical": "citing Gallimore v. Marilyn's Shoes, 292 N.C. 399, 402, 233 S.E.2d 529, 531 (1977)"
        },
        {
          "page": "248"
        },
        {
          "page": "248"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/93/0242-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 97-2",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 2004,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "(6)"
        },
        {
          "page": "(5)"
        },
        {
          "page": "(9)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "538 S.E.2d 912",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2000,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "914"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "353 N.C. 227",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        135777
      ],
      "year": 2000,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "230"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/353/0227-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "282 S.E.2d 458",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1981,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "463"
        },
        {
          "page": "463"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "304 N.C. 1",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8565243
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1981,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "6"
        },
        {
          "page": "6"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/304/0001-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "509 S.E.2d 411",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 1998,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "414",
          "parenthetical": "citation omitted"
        },
        {
          "page": "414"
        },
        {
          "page": "413"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "349 N.C. 676",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        571666
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1998,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "681",
          "parenthetical": "citation omitted"
        },
        {
          "page": "681"
        },
        {
          "page": "681"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/349/0676-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "530 S.E.2d 549",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 2000,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "553"
        },
        {
          "page": "553"
        },
        {
          "page": "553"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "352 N.C. 109",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        684964
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 2000,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "116"
        },
        {
          "page": "115"
        },
        {
          "page": "116"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/352/0109-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "485 S.E.2d 49",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1997,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "345 N.C. 751",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        54001,
        53908,
        53845,
        53911,
        53913
      ],
      "year": 1997,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/345/0751-03",
        "/nc/345/0751-04",
        "/nc/345/0751-01",
        "/nc/345/0751-02",
        "/nc/345/0751-05"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "477 S.E.2d 678",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 5,
      "year": 1996,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "679"
        },
        {
          "page": "679"
        },
        {
          "page": "680",
          "parenthetical": "employee's death was \"in the course of' employment where his travel, which included eating in a restaurant, was to further his employer's business and at the direction of his employer even though his death was caused by his supervisor's negligent driving while returning to a hotel"
        },
        {
          "page": "679"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "124 N.C. App. 526",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11890015
      ],
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 1996,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "529"
        },
        {
          "page": "528"
        },
        {
          "page": "529"
        },
        {
          "page": "529"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/124/0526-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "614 S.E.2d 448",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        12633151
      ],
      "year": 2005,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "450"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/se2d/614/0448-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "147 S.E.2d 633",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1966,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "635",
          "parenthetical": "\"The rule of causal relation is 'the very sheet anchor of the Workmen's Compensation Act,' and has been adhered to in our decisions, and prevents our Act from being a general health and insurance benefit act.\""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1
    },
    {
      "cite": "267 N.C. 111",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8558567
      ],
      "year": 1966,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "115",
          "parenthetical": "\"The rule of causal relation is 'the very sheet anchor of the Workmen's Compensation Act,' and has been adhered to in our decisions, and prevents our Act from being a general health and insurance benefit act.\""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/267/0111-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "171 N.C. App. 386",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8437195
      ],
      "year": 2005,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "388"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/171/0386-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "296 S.E.2d 297",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 1
    },
    {
      "cite": "307 N.C. 121",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8560803
      ],
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/307/0121-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "291 S.E.2d 158",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1982,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "159"
        },
        {
          "page": "161",
          "parenthetical": "quotation omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1
    },
    {
      "cite": "57 N.C. App. 33",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8521779
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1982,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "34"
        },
        {
          "page": "37"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/57/0033-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "349 S.E.2d 600",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1986,
      "opinion_index": 1
    },
    {
      "cite": "318 N.C. 417",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4732777,
        4738513,
        4738804,
        4734109,
        4737790
      ],
      "year": 1986,
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/318/0417-02",
        "/nc/318/0417-01",
        "/nc/318/0417-03",
        "/nc/318/0417-04",
        "/nc/318/0417-05"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "343 S.E.2d 551",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1986,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "553"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1
    },
    {
      "cite": "81 N.C. App. 140",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8521831
      ],
      "year": 1986,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "142"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/81/0140-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "261 S.E.2d 16",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1979,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "18"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1
    },
    {
      "cite": "44 N.C. App. 335",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8552678
      ],
      "year": 1979,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "337"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/44/0335-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "239 S.E.2d 243",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1977,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "244"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1
    },
    {
      "cite": "293 N.C. 731",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8567203
      ],
      "year": 1977,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "733"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/293/0731-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "577 S.E.2d 696",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 2003,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "698"
        },
        {
          "page": "698"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1
    },
    {
      "cite": "157 N.C. App. 105",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        9185205
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2003,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "106-07"
        },
        {
          "page": "106-07"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/157/0105-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "123 S.E.2d 608",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1962,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "611"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1
    },
    {
      "cite": "256 N.C. 175",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8571678
      ],
      "year": 1962,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "179"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/256/0175-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "82 S.E.2d 419",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1954,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "421"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1
    },
    {
      "cite": "240 N.C. 453",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8601951
      ],
      "year": 1954,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "456"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/240/0453-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "589 S.E.2d 176",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2003,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "178",
          "parenthetical": "citing Ellis v. Service Co., Inc., 240 N.C. 453, 456, 82 S.E.2d 419, 421 (1954)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1
    },
    {
      "cite": "161 N.C. App. 722",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8960357
      ],
      "year": 2003,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "725",
          "parenthetical": "citing Ellis v. Service Co., Inc., 240 N.C. 453, 456, 82 S.E.2d 419, 421 (1954)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/161/0722-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "572 S.E.2d 784",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2002,
      "opinion_index": 1
    },
    {
      "cite": "356 N.C. 436",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        1511425,
        1511469,
        1511153,
        1511506,
        1511576
      ],
      "year": 2002,
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/356/0436-01",
        "/nc/356/0436-05",
        "/nc/356/0436-02",
        "/nc/356/0436-03",
        "/nc/356/0436-04"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "569 S.E.2d 675",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 2002,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "678"
        },
        {
          "page": "678"
        },
        {
          "page": "678"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1
    },
    {
      "cite": "153 N.C. App. 266",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        9249421
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 2002,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "269"
        },
        {
          "page": "270"
        },
        {
          "page": "270"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/153/0266-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "589 S.E.2d 150",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2003,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "154"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1
    },
    {
      "cite": "161 N.C. App. 606",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8959480
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 2003,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "611"
        },
        {
          "page": "612"
        },
        {
          "page": "612"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/161/0606-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "470 S.E.2d 30",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1996,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "31"
        },
        {
          "page": "31"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1
    },
    {
      "cite": "343 N.C. 279",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        798871
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1996,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "281"
        },
        {
          "page": "281"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/343/0279-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "195 S.E. 370",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1938,
      "opinion_index": 1
    },
    {
      "cite": "213 N.C. 148",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8626876
      ],
      "year": 1938,
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/213/0148-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "45 S.E. 387",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "year": 1947,
      "opinion_index": 1
    },
    {
      "cite": "228 N.C. 346",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8626344
      ],
      "year": 1947,
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/228/0346-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "560 S.E.2d 796",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2002,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "A traveling employee whose lodging and meals are provided by the employer at a specific location without reimbursement for meals taken at a different location is not within the course and scope of her employment while going to or returning from a meal taken at that different location."
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1
    },
    {
      "cite": "355 N.C. 283",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        219969,
        220200,
        219983,
        219888,
        220082
      ],
      "year": 2002,
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/355/0283-03",
        "/nc/355/0283-02",
        "/nc/355/0283-05",
        "/nc/355/0283-04",
        "/nc/355/0283-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "555 S.E.2d 618",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2001,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "621"
        },
        {
          "page": "621"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1
    },
    {
      "cite": "147 N.C. App. 308",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        9379457
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2001,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "311"
        },
        {
          "page": "311"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/147/0308-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "565 S.E.2d 9",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2002,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "17",
          "parenthetical": "citation omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1
    },
    {
      "cite": "356 N.C. 1",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        1511222
      ],
      "year": 2002,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "13",
          "parenthetical": "citation omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/356/0001-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "468 S.E.2d 269",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1996,
      "opinion_index": 1
    },
    {
      "cite": "122 N.C. App. 143",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11916022
      ],
      "year": 1996,
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/122/0143-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "581 S.E.2d 778",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2003,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "783",
          "parenthetical": "citing Lewis v. Craven Regional Medical Center, 122 N.C. App. 143, 468 S.E.2d 269 (1996)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1
    },
    {
      "cite": "158 N.C. App. 341",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        9187488
      ],
      "year": 2003,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "348",
          "parenthetical": "citing Lewis v. Craven Regional Medical Center, 122 N.C. App. 143, 468 S.E.2d 269 (1996)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/158/0341-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "570 S.E.2d 121",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2002,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "124",
          "parenthetical": "citation omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1
    },
    {
      "cite": "153 N.C. App. 469",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        9250443
      ],
      "year": 2002,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "472",
          "parenthetical": "citation omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/153/0469-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "590 S.E.2d 461",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2004,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "465",
          "parenthetical": "citation omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1
    },
    {
      "cite": "162 N.C. App. 292",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8916550
      ],
      "year": 2004,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "297",
          "parenthetical": "citation omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/162/0292-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "63 S.E.2d 173",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1951,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "176",
          "parenthetical": "emphasis supplied"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1
    },
    {
      "cite": "233 N.C. 88",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8599630
      ],
      "year": 1951,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "92-93",
          "parenthetical": "emphasis supplied"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/233/0088-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "486 S.E.2d 478",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1997,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "483"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1
    },
    {
      "cite": "126 N.C. App. 547",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11712005
      ],
      "year": 1997,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "556-57"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/126/0547-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "322 S.E.2d 648",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1984,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "652"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1
    },
    {
      "cite": "71 N.C. App. 532",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8525856
      ],
      "year": 1984,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "536-37"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/71/0532-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "364 S.E.2d 417",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1988,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "420"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1
    },
    {
      "cite": "321 N.C. 350",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2566796
      ],
      "year": 1988,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "354"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/321/0350-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "233 S.E.2d 529",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1977,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "533"
        },
        {
          "page": "532"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1
    },
    {
      "cite": "292 N.C. 399",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8569857
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1977,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "404"
        },
        {
          "page": "404"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/292/0399-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "386 S.E.2d 174",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1989,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "citing Gallimore v. Marilyn's Shoes, 292 N.C. 399, 404, 233 S.E.2d 529, 533 (1977)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1
    },
    {
      "cite": "325 N.C. 702",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2488046
      ],
      "year": 1989,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "citing Gallimore v. Marilyn's Shoes, 292 N.C. 399, 404, 233 S.E.2d 529, 533 (1977)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/325/0702-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "377 S.E.2d 777",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1989,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "781",
          "parenthetical": "citing Gallimore v. Marilyn's Shoes, 292 N.C. 399, 404, 233 S.E.2d 529, 533 (1977)"
        },
        {
          "page": "781"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1
    },
    {
      "cite": "93 N.C. App. 242",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8527997
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1989,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "248",
          "parenthetical": "citing Gallimore v. Marilyn's Shoes, 292 N.C. 399, 404, 233 S.E.2d 529, 533 (1977)"
        },
        {
          "page": "248"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/93/0242-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "485 S.E.2d 49",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1997,
      "opinion_index": 1
    },
    {
      "cite": "345 N.C. 751",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        54001,
        53908,
        53845,
        53911,
        53913
      ],
      "year": 1997,
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/345/0751-03",
        "/nc/345/0751-04",
        "/nc/345/0751-01",
        "/nc/345/0751-02",
        "/nc/345/0751-05"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "477 S.E.2d 678",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1996,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "679"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1
    },
    {
      "cite": "124 N.C. App. 526",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11890015
      ],
      "year": 1996,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "528"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/124/0526-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 1561,
    "char_count": 49811,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.742,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.0808720965694646e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8579758897140335
    },
    "sha256": "ac5b5839393c94e629235f141f91b83e9846e90652b65880448e20a48be92bbf",
    "simhash": "1:1721c90af4f3641e",
    "word_count": 8402
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:22:54.702952+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judge MCCULLOUGH concurs.",
      "Judge TYSON dissents."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "LEIGH ANN CHAVIS, Employee-Plaintiff v. TLC HOME HEALTH CARE, Employer-Defendant, and PHARMACISTS' MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Carrier-Defendant"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "WYNN, Judge.\nUnder the Workers\u2019 Compensation Act, a traveling employee is in the course of employment once a personal deviation has been completed and the direct business route has been resumed. Cauble v. Soft-Play, Inc., 124 N.C. App. 526, 529, 477 S.E.2d 678, 679 (1996), disc. review denied, 345 N.C. 751, 485 S.E.2d 49 (1997). In this case, Plaintiff-Employee traveled to a patient\u2019s home, left on a personal errand, and was injured in an automobile accident on her return to the patient\u2019s home. Because the personal errand was complete and Plaintiff had resumed her business travel route, we hold that the accident occurred in the course of her employment making her injury compensable. Accordingly, we affirm the full Commission\u2019s Opinion and Award on this and other issues presented on appeal.\nThe evidence from the record on appeal tends to show that Plaintiff Leigh Ann Chavis, a certified nursing assistant (\u201cCNA\u201d), worked as a \u201crunner\u201d for Defendant TLC Home Health Care. As a \u201crunner,\u201d Ms. Chavis traveled to multiple patients\u2019 homes in a single day. TLC Home Health Care reimbursed Ms. Chavis for the mileage she incurred from her home to the first patient\u2019s home, to and from each patient\u2019s home, and from her last patient\u2019s home to her home. TLC Home Health Care paid Ms. Chavis an hourly wage only for the time she spent in-home with the patient and not for the travel time.\nOn 26 October 2000, Ms. Chavis drove to her first patient\u2019s home at 8:00 a.m. to perform three-and-a-half hours of work. However, upon arriving at the home, the patient, Linda Galegos, informed Ms. Chavis that she was leaving to take care of some business at school. Ms. Galegos informed Ms. Chavis that she would be back home in approximately twenty minutes.\nTLC Home Health Care had a policy that did not permit Ms. Chavis to wait in a patient\u2019s home when the patient was not there. But TLC Home Health Care had no written policy on what Ms. Chavis should have done when a patient told her to wait twenty minutes. Ms. Chavis testified that, on a previous occasion, Barbara Locklear, TLC Home Health Care\u2019s scheduling supervisor, informed her to \u201cjust go get something to eat or just do something till the time she come (sic) back, but if she\u2019s going to be gone more than an hour or two, you have to go to another client.\u201d But Ms. Locklear testified that in that situation Ms. Chavis should have called TLC Home Health Care to see if she should be immediately assigned to another patient.\nMs. Chavis told Ms. Galegos that she would meet her back at her home. Ms. Chavis then drove directly to her father\u2019s place of employment, dropped off his wallet, and drove directly back to Ms. Galegos\u2019s house. While driving back to Ms. Galegos\u2019s house, Ms. Chavis blacked out and ran her car off the road into the side of a church, sustaining injuries to her right foot. Ms. Chavis\u2019s father contacted Ms. Locklear that day to inform her of the accident.\nMs. Chavis came under the care of George Dawson, III, M.D. for the injuries to her right foot. Dr. Dawson applied a soft cast, and Ms. Chavis was unable to walk without crutches for several months. On 10 November 2000, Dr. Dawson recommended that Ms. Chavis be out of work for a four-month period. On 6 April 2001, Dr. Dawson gave her a note to return to working regular duty on 9 April 2001. Before returning to work in April 2001, Ms. Chavis contacted TLC Home Health Care to inquire about sedentary work but was told none was available. Nonetheless, Ms. Chavis\u2019s contract was not terminated. Ms. Chavis filed a claim for workers\u2019 compensation which TLC Home Health Care denied. The claim came for a hearing before Deputy Commissioner Ronnie E. Rowell, who awarded Ms. Chavis temporary total disability from 26 October 2000 to 9 April 2001 and for an additional 43.2 weeks thereafter. TLC Home Health Care appealed to the full Commission. On 1 April 2004, the full Commission filed an Opinion and Award affirming Deputy Commissioner Rowell\u2019s award including all travel expenses. TLC Home Health Care was also ordered to pay all medical expenses and attorney\u2019s fees. TLC Home Health Care appeals from this Opinion and Award.\nOn appeal, TLC Home Health Care argues that the full Commission erred by concluding that (1) Ms. Chavis\u2019s injury \u201carose out of\u2019 and \u201cin the course of\u2019 her employment; (2) Ms. Chavis\u2019s average weekly wage should include what she was paid in milage reimbursement; (3) TLC Home Health Care must provide medical treatment should it become necessary; (4) Ms. Chavis was temporarily and totally disabled from 26 October 2000 to 9 April 2001; (5) Ms. Chavis gave notice of her injury to TLC Home Health Care; and (6) evidence should be excluded. We disagree.\nThe standard of review for this Court in reviewing an appeal from the full Commission is limited to determining \u201cwhether any competent evidence supports the Commission\u2019s findings of fact and whether the findings of fact support the Commission\u2019s conclusions of law.\u201d Deese v. Champion Int\u2019l Corp., 352 N.C. 109, 116, 530 S.E.2d 549, 553 (2000). Our review \u201c \u2018goes no further than to determine whether the record contains any evidence tending to support the finding.\u2019 \u201d Adams v. AVX Corp., 349 N.C. 676, 681, 509 S.E.2d 411, 414 (1998) (citation omitted). The full Commission\u2019s findings of fact \u201care conclusive on appeal when supported by competent evidence,\u201d even if there is evidence to support a contrary finding, Morrison v. Burlington Indus., 304 N.C. 1, 6, 282 S.E.2d 458, 463 (1981), and may be set aside on appeal only \u201cwhen there is a complete lack of competent evidence to support them[.]\u201d Young v. Hickory Bus. Furniture, 353 N.C. 227, 230, 538 S.E.2d 912, 914 (2000). It is not the job of this Court to re-weigh the evidence. Adams, 349 N.C. at 681, 509 S.E.2d at 414. Further, all evidence must be taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff \u201cis entitled to the benefit of every reasonable inference to be drawn from the evidence.\u201d Deese, 352 N.C. at 115, 530 S.E.2d at 553.\nFirst, TLC Home Health Care argues that the full Commission erred in concluding that Ms. Chavis\u2019s accident arose out of her and in the course of her employment. We disagree.\nUnder the Workers\u2019 Compensation Act, an injury is compensable only if it is the result of an \u201caccident arising out of and in the course of the employment^]\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 97-2(6) (2004). \u201cWhether an injury arose out of and in the course of employment is a mixed question of law and fact, and the Industrial Commission\u2019s findings in this regard are conclusive on appeal if supported by competent evidence.\u201d Culpepper v. Fairfield Sapphire Valley, 93 N.C. App. 242, 247, 377 S.E.2d 777, 780, aff'd per curium, 325 N.C. 702, 386 S.E.2d 174 (1989) (citing Gallimore v. Marilyn\u2019s Shoes, 292 N.C. 399, 402, 233 S.E.2d 529, 531 (1977)). The employee must establish the \u201carising out of\u2019 and \u201cin the course of\u2019 requirements to be entitled to compensation. Roberts v. Burlington Indus., Inc., 321 N.C. 350, 354, 364 S.E.2d 417, 420 (1988).\nTLC Home Health Care argues that Ms. Chavis was not \u201cin the course\u201d of her employment when the accident occurred because she was on a personal errand. \u201cThe words \u2018in the course of\u2019 refer to the time, place, and circumstances under which an accident occurred. The accident must occur during the period and place of employment.\u201d Ross v. Young Supply Co., 71 N.C. App. 532, 536-37, 322 S.E.2d 648, 652 (1984). North Carolina adheres to the rule that employees whose work requires travel away from the employer\u2019s premises are within the course of their employment continuously during such travel, except when there is a distinct departure for a personal errand. Creel v. Town of Dover, 126 N.C. App. 547, 556, 486 S.E.2d 478, 483 (1997); Cauble, 124 N.C. App. at 528, 477 S.E.2d at 679.\nMs. Chavis\u2019s work required her to continuously travel to and from different patients\u2019 homes. Therefore, she was \u201cin the course\u201d of her employment while traveling unless on a personal errand. Id.\nIndeed, we cannot agree with the dissent\u2019s claim that Ms. Chavis does not fit into this \u201ctraveling salesman\u201d exception because she had fixed hours of employment. Ms. Chavis\u2019s job duty, \u201cdesignated runner\u201d, required her to work for multiple patients in a day. She did not have a guarantee of a fixed number of patients in a day, and was only paid for the actual in-home time with the patients. Moreover, she did not have fixed work hours, as the number of patients she worked with in a day varied, which varied her hours.\nFurthermore, TLC Home Health Care had a policy that did not permit Ms. Chavis to wait at a patient\u2019s home when the patient was not there. On a previous occasion, Ms. Locklear informed Ms. Chavis to \u201cjust go get something to eat or just do something till the time she come back, but if she\u2019s going to be gone more than an hour or two, you have to go to another client.\u201d This policy was in effect to prevent claims of theft against TLC Home Health Care employees and to comply with government regulations. By leaving the Galegos home, Ms. Chavis complied with the orders of TLC Home Health Care and furthered her employer\u2019s interests. See Cauble, 124 N.C. App. at 529, 477 S.E.2d at 680 (employee\u2019s death was \u201cin the course of\u2019 employment where his travel, which included eating in a restaurant, was to further his employer\u2019s business and at the direction of his employer even though his death was caused by his supervisor\u2019s negligent driving while returning to a hotel).\n\u201cIt is well-established that a traveling employee will be compensated under the Workers\u2019 Compensation Act \u2018for injuries received . . . while returning to work after having made a detour for his own personal pleasure.\u2019 \u201d Cauble, 124 N.C. App. at 529, 477 S.E.2d at 679 (quoting Chandler v. Nello L. Teer Co., 53 N.C. App. 766, 770, 281 S.E.2d 718, 721 (1981), aff\u2019d, 305 N.C. 292, 287 S.E.2d 890 (1982)). Once the deviation has been completed and the direct business route has been resumed, the injury is compensable. Creel, 126 N.C. App. at 557, 486 S.E.2d at 483 (the plaintiff\u2019s injury occurred \u201cin the course\u201d of his employment when on his way to work the plaintiff stopped off for a drink but had resumed his travel to work when the accident occurred); Martin v. Georgia-Pac. Corp., 5 N.C. App. 37, 43-44, 167 S.E.2d 790, 794 (1969) (the plaintiff\u2019s death occurred \u201cin the course\u201d of his employment where, although going to see yachts was a personal detour, once he began to proceed to dinner he \u201chad abandoned his personal sight-seeing mission\u201d and was back within the scope of his employment).\nAs in Creel and Martin, Ms. Chavis had completed her personal deviation. Ms. Chavis had resumed the direct business route as she was driving on the fastest route to Ms. Galegos\u2019s home. Since Ms. Chavis had resumed her direct business route after completing her personal deviation when the accident occurred, the accident occurred \u201cin the course\u201d of her employment. Creel, 126 N.C. App. at 557, 486 S.E.2d at 483.\nTLC Home Health Care also argues that the accident did not \u201carise out of\u2019 Ms. Chavis\u2019s employment because the accident was caused by her idiopathic condition, not her employment. The words \u201carising out of the employment\u201d refer to the origin or cause of the accidental injury. Roberts, 321 N.C. at 354, 364 S.E.2d at 420. \u201c[A] contributing proximate cause of the injury must be a risk inherent or incidental to the employment, and must be one to which the employee would not have been equally exposed apart from the employment.\u201d Culpepper, 93 N.C. App. at 248, 377 S.E.2d at 781 (emphasis omitted) (citing Gallimore, 292 N.C. at 404, 233 S.E.2d at 533). Under this \u201cincreased risk\u201d analysis, the \u201ccausative danger must be peculiar to the work and not common to the neighborhood.\u201d Gallimore, 292 N.C. at 404, 233 S.E.2d at 532 (citations omitted). Where a plaintiff\u2019s job requires him or her to travel from his or her place of work to various places in the community, the job exposes the plaintiff to the risk of travel. Warren v. City of Wilmington, 43 N.C. App. 748, 750, 259 S.E.2d 786, 788 (1979).\nIn this case, Ms. Chavis\u2019s job required her to travel to and from different patients\u2019 homes, exposing her to the risk of travel. This increased travel time is an \u201cincreased risk\u201d inherent to the employment. Culpepper, 93 N.C. App. at 248, 377 S.E.2d at 781.\nHowever, TLC Home Health Care argues that Ms. Chavis\u2019s accident was caused by her idiopathic condition, i.e., blackout, and not her increased travel risk. \u201c[W]here the accident and resultant injury arise out of both the idiopathic condition of the workman and hazards incident to the employment, the employer is liable. But not so where the idiopathic condition is the sole cause of the injury.\u201d Vause v. Vause Farm Equip. Co., Inc., 233 N.C. 88, 92-93, 63 S.E.2d 173, 176 (1951). The general rule is that\nwhere an employee falls from a building, scaffold, ladder, or other place of danger where his employment places him, the accident, if it appears to be incident to and a natural result of a particular risk of the work, may be said to arise out of the employment, even though illness or some pre-existing infirmity may have been a contributing cause of the fall.\nVause, 233 N.C. at 96, 63 S.E.2d at 179 (citing Rewis v. N.Y. Life Ins. Co., 226 N.C. 325, 38 S.E.2d 97 (1946); DeVine v. Dave Steel Co., 227 N.C. 684, 44 S.E.2d 77 (1947); Robbins v. Bossong Hosiery Mills, Inc., 220 N.C. 246, 17 S.E.2d 20 (1941)).\nThe full Commission found that \u201cPlaintiff\u2019s October 26, 2000 injury arose out of both her idiopathic condition and the hazards incident to her employment with defendant-employer.\u201d Ms. Chavis testified that \u201c[t]he only thing I remember was I was fixing to hit the side of the road. I know I was going around a curve, the next thing I know I was hitting the side of the church. That\u2019s the only thing I can remember.\u2019.\u2019 Ms. Chavis had previously described this incident as having a \u201cblackout.\u201d But the accident occurred while Ms. Chavis was driving in the course of her employment. Ms. Chavis\u2019s job duties required her constantly to travel in her car, increasing her travel risk. Since Ms. Chavis\u2019s work required her to face the increased risk of constant road travel on her job, we hold that the car accident \u201carose out of\u2019 her employment, even though her idiopathic condition may have been a contributing cause. Vause, 233 N.C. at 96, 63 S.E.2d at 179.\nNext, TLC Home Health Care argues that the full Commission erred in concluding that Ms. Chavis\u2019s average weekly wage should include what she was paid in mileage reimbursement. We disagree.\nSection 97-2(5) of the North Carolina General Statutes provides in pertinent part that \u201c[w]herever allowances of any character made to an employee in lieu of wages are specified part of the wage contract, they shall be deemed a part of his earnings.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 97-2(5) (2004). On this issue the full Commission found the following finding of fact:\n25. Plaintiff\u2019s average weekly wage cannot be determined based upon the Form 22 wage chart alone, because it does not reflect what plaintiff was paid for mileage. Plaintiff\u2019s mileage reimbursement must be included in the calculation of her average weekly wage because she was paid mileage in lieu of wages.\nBecause we are bound by the findings of the full Commission so long as there is some evidence of record to support them, we must disagree with TLC Home Health Care\u2019s argument. See Morrison, 304 N.C. at 6, 282 S.E.2d at 463. On all forms submitted to the Industrial Commission, TLC Home Health Care indicated that Ms. Chavis\u2019s average weekly wage was \u201cto be determined.\u201d TLC Home Health Care submitted Form 22 to the Industrial Commission indicating \u201cN/A\u201d in response to the question: \u201cWas this employee given free rent, lodging, or board or other allowances made in lieu of wages?\u201d But Ms. Chavis testified that she was paid mileage reimbursement rather than an hourly wage when driving to and from different patients\u2019 houses during the work day. Ms. Locklear confirmed this payment arrangement. As Ms. Chavis was performing her job duties while driving from one patient\u2019s house to another, but was not paid an hourly wage during this time, there is competent evidence to support the finding that Ms. Chavis was paid mileage in lieu of wages, and the full Commission properly included the mileage in her average weekly wage. See, e.g., Shah v. Howard Johnson, 140 N.C. App. 58, 66, 535 S.E.2d 577, 582 (2000), disc. review denied, 353 N.C. 381, 547 S.E.2d 17 (2001) (full Commission properly included the value of the plaintiff\u2019s hotel room provided to him in lieu of wages).\nNext, TLC Home Health Care argues that the full Commission erred in concluding that TLC Home Health Care must provide medical treatment should it become necessary. TLC Home Health Care failed to cite any authority in support of this argument in its brief; therefore, it is deemed abandoned. N.C. R. App. P. 28(b)(6).\nNext, TLC Home Health Care argues that the full Commission erred in concluding that Ms. Chavis was temporarily and totally disabled from 26 October 2000 to 9 April 2001 because she was capable of performing sedentary work. We disagree.\nTo receive compensation under section 97-29 of the North Carolina General Statutes, a claimant has the burden of proving the existence of a disability as well as its extent. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 97-29 (2004). Section 97-2(9) of the North Carolina General Statutes defines \u201cdisability\u201d as \u201cincapacity because of injury to earn the wages which the employee was receiving at the time of injury in the same or any other employment.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 97-2(9) (2004). Thus, the claimant\u2019s burden is to show that because of injury his earning capacity is impaired. Russell v. Lowes Prod. Distribution, 108 N.C. App. 762, 425 S.E.2d 454 (1993). The burden is on the employee to show that he is unable to earn the same wages he had earned before the injury, either in the same employment or in other employment. Hilliard v. Apex Cabinet Co., 305 N.C. 593, 595, 290 S.E.2d 682, 683 (1982). \u201cOnce the burden of disability is met, there is a presumption that disability continues until \u2018the employee returns to work at wages equal to those he was receiving at the time his injury occurred.\u2019 \u201d Simmons v. Kroger Co., 117 N.C. App. 440, 443, 451 S.E.2d 12, 14 (1994) (quoting Watkins v. Cent. Motor Lines, Inc., 279 N.C. 132, 181 S.E.2d 588 (1971)). The burden then shifts to the employer to produce evidence that the claimant is employable. Burwell v. Winn-Dixie Raleigh, Inc., 114 N.C. App. 69, 73, 441 S.E.2d 145, 149 (1994). The employer must \u201ccome forward with evidence to show not only that suitable jobs are available, but also that the [claimant] is capable of getting one, taking into account both physical and vocational limitations.\u201d Kennedy v. Duke Univ. Med. Ctr., 101 N.C. App. 24, 33, 398 S.E.2d 677, 682 (1990).\nThe full Commission found the following pertinent findings of fact on the issue of temporary total disability:\n12. Prior to April 9, 2001, plaintiff contacted defendant-employer to request sedentary work. Plaintiff was told there was no light duty work available. Plaintiffs employment with defendant-employer was not terminated, and she returned to work for defendant-employer in April 2001 earning the same wages she was earning at the time of the injury.\n13. Plaintiff was on crutches through March 2001. Her prior work experience was limited to jobs which would have required her to work on her feet. She did not look for sedentary work between October 26, 2000 and April 9, 2001, because she was still an employee of defendant-employer. It would have been futile in any event for her to have looked for sedentary work, given her restrictions and her past work experience.\n***\n21. As a result of the injury she sustained on October 26, 2000, plaintiff was unable to earn the same wages she was earning at the time of the injury in the same or any other employment, from October 26, 2000 to April 9, 2001.\nThere is competent evidence in the record to support the full Commission\u2019s findings of fact that Ms. Chavis was unable to earn the same wages she earned prior to her injury, either in the same employment or in other employment. On 10 November 2000, Dr. Dawson recommended that Ms. Chavis be out of work for a four-month period. Also, prior to 9 April 2001, Ms. Chavis contacted TLC Home Health Care to inquire about sedentary work but was told none was available. This supports the full Commissions finding that Ms. Chavis was incapable of earning the same wages in the same employment as a CNA. See Moore v. Davis Auto Serv., 118 N.C. App. 624, 628, 456 S.E.2d 847, 850 (1995) (\u201c[E]vidence of an employer\u2019s refusal to allow an employee to return to work because there was no \u2018light\u2019 work available supports a finding that the employee was not capable of earning wages in the same employment.\u201d (citation omitted)).\nAlso, Ms. Chavis testified that she was twenty-seven-years-old, had a high school diploma, CNA certificate, and lobotomy certificate. All of her previous employment had required her to work on her feet. Ms. Chavis had no computer, receptionist, or secretarial skills. This is competent evidence to support the full Commission\u2019s finding of fact that \u201c[i]t would have been futile in any event for her to have looked for sedentary work[.]\u201d See Peoples v. Cone Mills Corp., 316 N.C. 426, 444, 342 S.E.2d 798, 809 (1986) (\u201cWhere, however, an employee\u2019s effort to obtain employment would be futile because of age, inexperience, lack of education or other preexisting factors, the employee should not be precluded from compensation for failing to engage in the meaningless exercise of seeking a job which does not exist.\u201d). As there is competent evidence to support the full Commission\u2019s findings of fact on the issue of temporary total disability, we find TLC Home Health Care\u2019s argument to be without merit.\nNext, TLC Home Health Care argues that the full Commission erred in concluding that Ms. Chavis gave notice of her injury to TLC Home Health Care because she filed Form 18 after the thirty-day time period required by section 97-22 of the North Carolina General Statutes. We disagree.\nSection 97-22 of the North Carolina General Statutes provides in pertinent part:\nno compensation shall be payable unless such written notice is given within 30 days after the occurrence of the accident or death, unless reasonable excuse is made to the satisfaction of the Industrial Commission for not giving such notice and the Commission is satisfied that the employer has not been prejudiced thereby.\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 97-22 (2004). Section 97-22 requires written notice be given by the injured employee to the employer within thirty days. Pierce v. Autoclave Block Corp., 27 N.C. App. 276, 278, 218 S.E.2d 510, 511 (1975).\nHere, both parties agree that Ms. Chavis did not give written notice of injury to her employer until she filed Form 18, more than thirty days after the accident. Since Ms. Chavis failed to provide written notice within the thirty-day time period, (1) she must provide a reasonable excuse for not giving the written notice, and (2) the employer must fail to show prejudice for the delay. Id.\nSection 97-22 gives the Industrial Commission the discretion to determine what is or is not a \u201creasonable excuse.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 97-22 (\u201c[U]nless reasonable excuse is made to the satisfaction of the Industrial Commission . . .\u201d) (emphasis added). This Court has previously indicated that included on the list of reasonable excuses would be, for example, \u201c \u2018a belief that one\u2019s employer is already cognizant of the accident. . .\u2019 or \u2018[w]here the employee does not reasonably know of the nature, seriousness, or probable compensable character of his injury and delays notification only until he reasonably knows ....\u2019\u201d Jones v. Lowe\u2019s Cos., Inc., 103 N.C. App. 73, 75, 404 S.E.2d 165, 166 (1991) (quoting Lawton v. County of Durham, 85 N.C. App. 589, 592, 355 S.E.2d 158, 160 (1987)); see Lakey v. U.S. Airways, Inc., 155 N.C. App. 169, 173, 573 S.E.2d 703, 706 (2002), disc. review denied, 357 N.C. 251, 582 S.E.2d 271 (2003) (reasonable excuse because employer knew of injury where employee was injured on employer\u2019s aircraft, employer filed an incident report, and employee saw employer\u2019s doctor within the thirty days following the injury); Peagler v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 138 N.C. App. 593, 603-04, 532 S.E.2d 207, 214 (2000) (reasonable excuse found because employee did not know nature and character of injury where doctors originally told him he had a heart attack, not a herniated disk). The burden is on the employee to show a \u201creasonable excuse.\u201d Jones, 103 N.C. App. at 75, 404 S.E.2d at 166.\nThe full Commission found the following pertinent finding of fact on the issue of notice:\n24. Plaintiff\u2019s father reported the injury to defendant-employer on the date of injury. Defendant-employer had actual notice of the injury on the date it occurred, as evidenced by defendant-employer\u2019s own written incident report. Under these circumstances, plaintiff had no reason to believe she had to follow-up with a written report of injury. Plaintiff has offered reasonable excuse for failing to give written notice of the injury within 30 days. Defendants offered no evidence that might tend to show that they were prejudiced by plaintiff\u2019s failure to file a written report within thirty days of the injury.\nMs. Locklear testified that, on the date of the injury, Ms. Chavis\u2019s father notified her of Ms. Chavis\u2019s accident and injury. Ms. Locklear is TLC Home Health Care\u2019s scheduling supervisor. This is competent evidence to support the full Commission\u2019s finding that on the date of the injury, TLC Home Health Care had actual notice of Ms. Chavis\u2019s accident and injury. Actual notice by the employer has been previously held by this Court to be a reasonable excuse for not giving written notice within thirty days. See, e.g., Davis v. Taylor-Wilkes Helicopter Serv., 145 N.C. App. 1, 11, 549 S.E.2d 580, 586 (2001) (employee\u2019s failure to provide written notice within thirty days did not bar his claim when his employer had actual notice of the injuries on the date they occurred).\nSection 97-22 of the North Carolina General Statutes also requires that the full Commission be satisfied that the employer has not been prejudiced by the delay in written notification. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 97-22; Lakey, 155 N.C. App. at 173, 573 S.E.2d at 706 (\u201cPossible prejudice occurs where the employer is not able to provide immediate medical diagnosis and treatment with a view to minimizing the seriousness of the injury and where the employer is unable to sufficiently investigate the incident causing the injury.\u201d). The burden is on the employer to show prejudice. Peagler, 138 N.C. App. at 604, 532 S.E.2d at 214; Jones, 103 N.C. App. at 76, 404 S.E.2d at 167.\nHere, the full Commission found that TLC Home Health Care had actual notice of Ms. Chavis\u2019s accident on the day it occurred. The full Commission found also that TLC Home Health Care \u201coffered no evidence that might tend to show that they were prejudiced\u201d by any delay in written notification. Although TLC Home Health Care now argues it was prejudiced because it was unable to direct Ms. Chavis\u2019s medical treatment, it did not argue this to the full Commission. Also, TLC Home Health Care fails to assert how it was prejudiced by Ms. Chavis seeking medical treatment from her own doctor. We find competent evidence to support the full Commission\u2019s finding that TLC Home Health Care had actual knowledge of Ms. Chavis\u2019s injury and was not prejudiced by any delay in written notification. See Lakey, 155 N.C. App. at 173, 573 S.E.2d at 706 (the defendants failed to assert how they were prejudiced by a delay in written notification).\nFinally, TLC Home Health Care argues that the full Commission erred by erroneously excluding evidence of Ms. Locklear\u2019s testimony regarding TLC Home Health Care\u2019s policies. Determining credibility of witnesses is the responsibility of the full Commission, not this Court. Adams, 349 N.C. at 681, 509 S.E.2d at 413. This Court does not re-weigh the evidence. Id, 509 S.E.2d at 414 Furthermore, \u201cthe Commission does not have to explain its findings of fact by attempting to distinguish which evidence or witnesses it finds credible.\u201d Deese, 352 N.C. at 116, 530 S.E.2d at 553. We find this argument to be without merit.\nAffirmed.\nJudge MCCULLOUGH concurs.\nJudge TYSON dissents.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WYNN, Judge."
      },
      {
        "text": "TYSON, Judge\ndissenting.\nThe majority\u2019s opinion holds Ms. Chavis\u2019s \u201caccident occurred in the course of her employment making her injury compensable.\u201d Ms. Chavis was not at work or \u201con-duty\u201d and was completing a personal errand when the accident occurred. Also, this single car accident occurred after Ms. Chavis \u201cblacked out,\u201d an idiopathic condition that was the sole cause of the accident. Ms. Chavis\u2019s injury did not \u201carise out of\u2019 her employment. I respectfully dissent.\nI. Standard of Review\nThe standard of review of an appeal from a decision by the Commission is well-established. \u201cIn reviewing an order and award of the Industrial Commission in a case involving workmens!\u2019] compensation, [an appellate court] is limited to a determination of (1) whether the findings of fact are supported by competent evidence, and (2) whether the conclusions of law are supported by the findings.\u201d Moore v. Federal Express, 162 N.C. App. 292, 297, 590 S.E.2d 461, 465 (2004) (citation omitted). \u201cAs long as the Commission\u2019s findings are supported by competent evidence of record, they will not be overturned on appeal.\u201d Rackley v. Coastal Painting, 153 N.C. App. 469, 472, 570 S.E.2d 121, 124 (2002) (citation omitted).\nHowever, \u201cthe Industrial Commission\u2019s conclusions of law are reviewable de novo.\u201d Whitfield v. Laboratory Corp. of Am., 158 N.C. App. 341, 348, 581 S.E.2d 778, 783 (2003) (citing Lewis v. Craven Regional Medical Center, 122 N.C. App. 143, 468 S.E.2d 269 (1996)). Under de novo review, the appellate court \u201cconsiders the matter anew and freely substitutes its own judgment for the agency\u2019s judgment.\u201d Mann Media, Inc. v. Randolph Cty. Planning Bd., 356 N.C. 1, 13, 565 S.E.2d 9, 17 (2002) (citation omitted).\nII. \u201cArising Out of and in the Course of\u2019 Employment\nThis Court has held that an employee who is injured in an accident while on a personal errand does not have a compensable claim. Bowser v. N.C. Dep\u2019t of Corr., 147 N.C. App. 308, 311, 555 S.E.2d 618, 621 (2001), disc. rev. denied, 355 N.C. 283, 560 S.E.2d 796 (2002) (A traveling employee whose lodging and meals are provided by the employer at a specific location without reimbursement for meals taken at a different location is not within the course and scope of her employment while going to or returning from a meal taken at that different location.) Ms. Chavis\u2019s injuries that occurred during a purely personal errand to deliver her father\u2019s wallet to him did not \u201carise out of\u2019 or occur \u201cin the course of\u2019 her employment.\nTLC Home Care argues and the majority\u2019s opinion agrees a plaintiff must prove her injury occurred under both conditions of \u201carising out of\u2019 and \u201cin the course of\u2019 employment to receive workers\u2019 compensation. See Ross v. Young Supply Co., 71 N.C. App. 532, 536-37, 322 S.E.2d 648, 652 (1984).\nThe words \u2018arising out of\u2019 refers to the origin or cause of the accident. The employee must be about his masters\u2019 business. Taylor v. Wake Forest, 228 N.C. 346, 45 S.E. 387 (1947). The words \u2018in the course of\u2019 refer to the time and place and circumstances under which an accident occurred. The accident must occur during the period and place of employment. Plemmons v. White\u2019s Service, 213 N.C. 148, 195 S.E. 370 (1938).\nId.\nHere, Ms. Chavis was engaged in a purely personal errand to \u201cdrop off her father\u2019s wallet,\u201d was not at work, and was \u201coff-duty\u201d when her accident occurred. The accident did not occur while Ms. Chavis was at work or while she was on the employer\u2019s premises. Ms. Chavis was off-duty and on a purely personal errand at the time and place the accident occurred.\nIII. Compensability\nA. \u201cGoing and Coming\u201d Rule\nUnder the \u201cgoing and coming\u201d rule, accidents which occur while an employee travels to and from work generally do not arise out of or in the course of employment. Royster v. Culp, Inc., 343 N.C. 279, 281, 470 S.E.2d 30, 31 (1996). The injury is not compensable unless the injured employee proves her injury occurred by showing one of the exceptions to the \u201cgoing and coming\u201d rule, i.e. \u201ctraveling salesman,\u201d \u201ccontractual duty,\u201d \u201cspecial errand,\u201d and \u201cdual purpose.\u201d Dunn v. Marconi Communications, Inc., 161 N.C. App. 606, 611, 589 S.E.2d 150, 154 (2003).\nGenerally, the employee must be injured while at work or on the employer\u2019s premises to receive workers\u2019 compensation. Hunt v. Tender Loving Care Home Care Agency, Inc., 153 N.C. App. 266, 269, 569 S.E.2d 675, 678, disc. rev. denied, 356 N.C. 436, 572 S.E.2d 784 (2002); see also Stanley v. Burns Int\u2019l Sec. Servs., 161 N.C. App. 722, 725, 589 S.E.2d 176, 178 (2003) (citing Ellis v. Service Co., Inc., 240 N.C. 453, 456, 82 S.E.2d 419, 421 (1954)) (\u201cAn employee is not engaged in the business of the employer while driving his or her personal vehicle to the place of work or while leaving the place of employment to return home.\u201d). In Stanley, \u201c[t]he [employee], was driving her own vehicle at the time of the accident, and her employer did not pay [her] for travel time to and from work or reimburse her for mileage [, and] . . . the [employee] was no longer on the employer\u2019s premises.\u201d 161 N.C. App. at 725, 589 S.E.2d at 178. There, we held the employee was subject to the \u201cgoing and coming\u201d rule and affirmed the Commission\u2019s denial of compensation. Here, Ms. Chavis has also failed to show she falls within any exception to the \u201cgoing and coming\u201d rule. See Royster, 343 N.C. at 281, 470 S.E.2d at 31. Exceptions to the \u201cgoing and coming\u201d rule do not allow compensate for injuries that occur while an employee is engaged in purely personal errands.\nB. \u201cTraveling Salesman\u201d\nThe \u201ctraveling salesman\u201d exception allows compensation for injuries to employees \u201cwhose work requires travel away from the employer\u2019s premises are within the course of their employment continuously during such travel, except when there is a distinct departure for a personal errand.\u201d Cauble v. Soft-Play, Inc., 124 N.C. App. 526, 528, 477 S.E.2d 678, 679 (1996), disc. rev. denied, 345 N.C. 751, 485 S.E.2d 49 (1997); Brewer v. Powers Trucking Co., 256 N.C. 175, 179, 123 S.E.2d 608, 611 (1962). In Jacobs v. Sara Lee Corp., an employee fell and injured his knee on an employer-sponsored trip while coming from a baseball game not included on his employee itinerary. 157 N.C. App. 105, 106-07, 577 S.E.2d 696, 698 (2003). \u201cThe Commission concluded as a matter of law, \u2018plaintiff\u2019s injury while on a deviation to a baseball game is not compensable. Plaintiff had not ended his personal deviation when he was injured leaving the ballpark.\u2019 \u201d Id.\nThis Court has also held, \u201cemployees with no definite time and place of employment, . . . are within the course of their employment when making a journey to perform a service on behalf of their employer.\u201d Creel v. Town of Dover, 126 N.C. App. 547, 556-57, 486 S.E.2d 478, 483 (1997); see also Hunt, 153 N.C. App. at 270, 569 S.E.2d at 678. (\u201cThe applicability of the \u2018traveling salesman\u2019 rule to the facts at bar depends upon the determination of whether plaintiff had fixed job hours and a fixed job location.\u201d).\nThe majority\u2019s opinion holds Ms. Chavis has proven she is entitled to compensation under the \u201ctraveling salesman\u201d exception simply because she was required to travel \u201ccontinuously\u201d throughout the day to different patients. Their opinion also asserts Ms. Chavis had no \u201cfixed\u201d place of employment.\nMs. Chavis has failed to prove she is entitled to compensation under the \u201ctraveling salesman\u201d exception for several reasons. Ms. Chavis was not on an overnight trip as is usually required by this exception. See Jacobs, 157 N.C. App. at 106-07, 577 S.E.2d at 698. While Ms. Chavis did not have one fixed place of employment, she did have fixed hours of employment. She was not compensated for time when she was not on duty. An employee must simultaneously have no definite place of work and no definite hours to be considered a traveling employee. Hunt, 153 N.C. App. at 270, 569 S.E.2d at 678. Here, Ms. Chavis was \u201coff-duty\u201d and was engaged in a personal errand while \u201coff-duty\u201d for her personal gain. See Bowser, 147 N.C. App. at 311, 555 S.E.2d at 621 (A traveling employee was denied compensation when on a personal errand to lunch.). Ms. Chavis failed to call her employer for a new assignment when her patient left the house. Although Ms. Chavis was told not to remain in the patient\u2019s house, nothing required her to leave the patient\u2019s premises, particularly where the patient would be gone for only \u201c20 minutes.\u201d\nC. \u201cContractual Duty\u201d\n\u201cThe \u2018contractual duty\u2019 exception states that \u2018injuries received by an employee while traveling to or from his place of employment are usually not covered . . . unless the employer furnishes the means of transportation as an incident of the contract of employment.\u2019 \u201d Dunn, 161 N.C. App. at 612, 589 S.E.2d at 155 (quoting Strickland v. King and Sellers v. King, 293 N.C. 731, 733, 239 S.E.2d 243, 244 (1977)). Even where the employer provides transportation to the employee, if the employee is on a personal errand neither the accident nor injury is compensable. In Dunn, an employee\u2019s injuries from.a car accident were found not to be compensable by the Commission, even though he drove a company car and claimed he was going home for the sole intent and purpose of retrieving his employer\u2019s equipment for a job site. 161 N.C. App. at 613, 689 S.E.2d at 156.\nLike any other employee who commutes to work at personal expense, Ms. Chavis was required by TLC Home Care to provide her own reliable transportation to maintain employment. Additionally, \u201c \u2018[i]f the transportation is provided permissively, gratuitously, or as an accommodation, the employee is not within the course of employment while in transit.\u2019 \u201d Hunt, 153 N.C. App. at 270, 569 S.E.2d at 679 (citing Robertson v. Construction Co., 44 N.C. App. 335, 337, 261 S.E.2d 16, 18 (1979)).\nTLC Home Care assigned error to the Commission\u2019s finding of fact number four: \u201c[P]laintiff was reimbursed for mileage incurred from her home to the first patient, from one patient\u2019s home to the next, and then from her last patient to her home at the end of the day.\u201d The transcript shows and Ms. Chavis admitted that during the week of her accident, \u201cthe rule applicable to [her] at TLC was that [she was] not reimbursed from [her] home to [her] first client.\u201d Ms. Chavis did not seek reimbursement for mileage from TLC Home Care from her home to her first patient on her reimbursement slip for the day of the accident. TLC Home Care did not substitute mileage reimbursement for wages, but gave Ms. Chavis a mileage reimbursement in addition to her wage for travel between patients, not travel from Ms. Chavis\u2019s home to her first patient. Ms. Chavis never sought reimbursement or was paid mileage reimbursement from her home to her first patient. The Commission\u2019s conclusion of law number four is unsupported by competent evidence.\nD. \u201cSpecial Errand\u201d and \u201cDual Purpose\u201d\nMs. Chavis is not eligible for compensation under the remaining exceptions to the \u201cgoing and coming\u201d rule. The \u201cspecial errand\u201d exception allows an employee to recover for injuries sustained while traveling to or from work if the injuries occur while the employee is engaged in a special duty or errand for his employer. See Schmoyer v. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, 81 N.C. App. 140, 142, 343 S.E.2d 551, 553, disc. rev. denied, 318 N.C. 417, 349 S.E.2d 600 (1986); Felton v. Hospital Guild, 57 N.C. App. 33, 34, 291 S.E.2d 158, 159, aff\u2019d by an equally divided court, 307 N.C. 121, 296 S.E.2d 297 (1982); Dunn, 161 N.C. App. at 612, 589 S.E.2d at 155.\nIn Dunn, the \u201cdual purpose\u201d exception is defined as follows:\n\u201cWhen a trip serves both business and personal purposes, it is a personal trip if the trip would have been made in spite of the failure or absence of the business purpose and would have been dropped in the event of failure of the private purpose, though the business errand remained undone; it is a business trip if a trip of this kind would have been made in spite of the failure or absence of the private purpose, because the service to be performed for the employer would have caused the journey to be made by someone even if it had not coincided with the employee\u2019s personal journey.\u201d\n161 N.C. App. at 612-13, 589 S.E.2d at 155 (quoting Felton, 57 N.C. App. at 37, 291 S.E.2d at 161 (quotation omitted)).\nMs. Chavis was not on a \u201cspecial errand\u201d for her employer, nor was she on an out-of-town business trip for a \u201cdual purpose.\u201d She was not on an errand for a patient, but purely for her personal benefit. Since Ms. Chavis has never made an overnight trip for her employer and was not being paid or traveling to her next patient, the employer received no benefit from her personal errand. The \u201cspecial errand\u201d and the \u201cdual purpose\u201d exceptions are inapplicable.\nIV. Idiopathic Condition\nThe facts are undisputed and the majority\u2019s opinion acknowledges, \u201cWhile driving back to Ms. Galegos\u2019s house, Ms. Chavis blacked out and ran her car off the road into the side of a church sustaining injuries to her right foot.\u201d TLC Home Care argues Ms. Chavis\u2019s accident did not \u201carise out of\u2019 her employment because the accident was solely caused by her idiopathic condition. I agree. \u201c \u2018Arising out of the employment\u2019 refers to the origin or cause of the accidental injury.\u201d Roberts v. Burlington Industries, 321 N.C. 350, 354, 364 S.E.2d 417, 420 (1988). Sustaining injuries from a single car accident after Ms. Chavis \u201cblacked out\u201d was a risk that she was equally exposed to and was not due to her employment. \u201c[A] contributing proximate cause of the injury must'be a risk inherent or incidental to the employment, and must be one to which the employee would not have been equally exposed apart from the employment.\u201d Culpepper v. Fairfield Sapphire Valley, 93 N.C. App. 242, 248, 377 S.E.2d 777, 781, aff\u2019d, 325 N.C. 702, 386 S.E.2d 174 (1989) (citing Gallimore v. Marilyn\u2019s Shoes, 292 N.C. 399, 404, 233 S.E.2d 529, 533 (1977)). \u201c[T]he causative danger must be peculiar to the work and not common to the neighborhood.\u201d Gallimore, 292 N.C. at 404, 233 S.E.2d at 532. Ms. Chavis\u2019s injuries are not compensable on these facts.\nTLC Home Care also argues that Ms. Chavis\u2019s single car accident was caused when she \u201cblacked out,\u201d an idiopathic condition and not from any increased travel risk. Again, I agree. \u201c[Wjhere the accident and resultant injury arise out of both the idiopathic condition of the workman and hazards incident to the employment, the employer is liable. But not so where the idiopathic condition is the sole cause of the injury.\u201d Vause v. Equipment Co., 233 N.C. 88, 92-93, 63 S.E.2d 173, 176 (1951) (emphasis supplied).\nMs. Chavis testified, \u201c [t]he only thing I remember was I was fixing to hit the side of the road. I know I was going around a curve, the next thing I know I was hitting the side of the church. That\u2019s the only thing I can remember.\u201d Ms. Chavis testified she experienced a blackout. The majority\u2019s opinion asserts, \u201cMs. Chavis\u2019s job duties required her to constantly travel in her car, increasing her travel risk.\u201d This notion is unsupported by any facts. Ms. Chavis commuted to and from work in her personal vehicle. She was off-duty and engaged in a purely personal errand when the accident occurred. Her risk was no greater than any other commuting employee or where an off-duty employee leaves work to get a meal, go to the bank, or engage in any other personal pursuit where all employees who drive are \u201cequally exposed apart from the employment.\u201d Culpepper, 93 N.C. App. at 248, 377 S.E.2d at 781. Ms. Chavis\u2019s injuries were caused solely by an accident as a result of her blackout, which the Commission acknowledged was an \u201cidiopathic condition.\u201d The Commission\u2019s opinion and award should be reversed.\nV. Conclusion\nNothing in these facts show Ms. Chavis\u2019s injuries \u201carose out of\u2019 or occurred \u201cin the course of\u2019 her employment. Her injuries occurred when \u201cgoing and coming\u201d to work and while she was on a purely personal errand. A distinguishable line exists to \u201cconstitute a \u2018distinct\u2019 and \u2018total\u2019 departure on a personal errand\u201d from the normal work routine or route. Munoz v. Caldwell Memorial Hospital, 171 N.C. App. 386, 388, 614 S.E.2d 448, 450 (2005). Ms. Chavis was off-duty and returning to her original job site to resume work when the accident occurred. She was not at work or reimbursed for mileage when the accident occurred. The \u201cgoing and coming\u201d rule precludes compensation and Ms. Chavis has failed to prove she comes within any exception to the rule.\nThe majority\u2019s decision will allow any off-duty employee who is injured while traveling on a purely personal errand to assert a workers\u2019 compensation claim. Workers\u2019 compensation insurance is not general liability insurance and requires a causal relation of the injury to the employment. See Bryan v. Church, 267 N.C. 111, 115, 147 S.E.2d 633, 635 (1966) (\u201cThe rule of causal relation is \u2018the very sheet anchor of the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act,\u2019 and has been adhered to in our decisions, and prevents our Act from being a general health and insurance benefit act.\u201d) (citation omitted).\nThe majority\u2019s opinion is an unprecedented and unwarranted extension of employers\u2019 liability for workers who are injured while not at work and while engaging in a purely personal pursuit. I cannot distinguish the facts here from when an off-duty employee leaves work in their personal vehicle and engages in an activity that has no connection to or benefit for their employer.\nMillions of workers leave and return to work daily in their personal vehicles for personal meals, doctor\u2019s appointments, banking, and any other personal errands that have no connection to or benefit for their employer. If an accident or injury occurs during these purely personal trips, the coming and going rule applies and no workers\u2019 compensation liability accrues to their employer. The cause of Ms. Chavis\u2019s injury was solely from a single car accident after she \u201cblacked out.\u201d The Commission\u2019s opinion and award is erroneous and should be reversed. I respectfully dissent.",
        "type": "dissent",
        "author": "TYSON, Judge"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Jones Martin Parris & Tessener Law Offices, PLLC, by J. Michael Riley and Gregory M. Martin, for plaintiff-appellee.",
      "Young Moore & Henderson, P.A., by J. Aldean Webster, III, for defendant-appellants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "LEIGH ANN CHAVIS, Employee-Plaintiff v. TLC HOME HEALTH CARE, Employer-Defendant, and PHARMACISTS' MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Carrier-Defendant\nNo. COA04-1454\n(Filed 16 August 2005)\n1. Workers\u2019 Compensation\u2014 home health nursing assistant\u2014 injury while traveling \u2014 course of employment\nUnder the Workers\u2019 Compensation Act, a traveling employee is in the course of employment once a personal deviation has been completed and the direct business route has been resumed. A certified nursing assistant working for a home health care agency had resumed her direct business route at the time of her accident where she went to the patient\u2019s home, the patient had to leave for about twenty minutes, plaintiff\u2019s employer did not permit waiting in the patient\u2019s home when the patient was not there but had no written policy on what to do during the wait, plaintiff ran an errand, and she was injured as she returned to the patient\u2019s home.\n2. Workers\u2019 Compensation\u2014 home health nursing assistant\u2014 blackout while driving \u2014 arising out of employment\nA car accident arose out of a home health nursing assistant\u2019s job, even though her blackout may have been a contributing cause, because the accident occurred while she was driving in the course of her employment.\n3. Workers\u2019 Compensation\u2014 average weekly wage \u2014 home health nurse \u2014 mileage included\nMileage was properly included in the calculation of the average weekly wage of a nursing assistant who was injured in a car accident on the way to a patient\u2019s house. She was performing her job duties in driving from one house to another, she was not paid an hourly wage while driving, and there is competent evidence to support the finding that she was paid mileage in lieu of wages.\n4. Workers\u2019 Compensation\u2014 disability \u2014 nursing assistant\u2014 capability for sedentary work \u2014 lack of skills\nCompetent evidence in the record in a workers\u2019 compensation hearing supported an Industrial Commission finding that plaintiff was unable to earn the same wages as before her injury, either as a certified nursing assistant or in other employment, although she was capable of sedentary work. Evidence that she had no computer, receptionist, or secretarial skills supported the finding that looking for sedentary work would have been futile.\n5. Workers\u2019 Compensation\u2014 delayed written notification\u2014 employer\u2019s actual knowledge\nAn employer\u2019s actual knowledge of a workers\u2019 compensation injury prevented prejudice from any delay in written notification.\n6. Workers\u2019 Compensation\u2014 evidence excluded \u2014 discretion of Commission\nDetermining credibility is the responsibility of the full Commission, and the Commission does not have to explain its findings by distinguishing credible witnesses and evidence. Here, there was no error in a workers\u2019 compensation case where the Industrial Commission excluded evidence regarding the employer\u2019s policies.\nJudge Tyson dissenting.\nAppeal by Defendants from Opinion and Award entered 1 April 2004 by North Carolina Industrial Commission. Heard in the Court of Appeals 8 June 2006.\nJones Martin Parris & Tessener Law Offices, PLLC, by J. Michael Riley and Gregory M. Martin, for plaintiff-appellee.\nYoung Moore & Henderson, P.A., by J. Aldean Webster, III, for defendant-appellants."
  },
  "file_name": "0366-01",
  "first_page_order": 396,
  "last_page_order": 416
}