{ "id": 8353783, "name": "FRANK EASTON, Employee Plaintiff v. J.D. DENSON MOWING, Employer, GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Carrier, Defendants", "name_abbreviation": "Easton v. Mowing", "decision_date": "2005-09-20", "docket_number": "No. COA04-1548", "first_page": "439", "last_page": "444", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "173 N.C. App. 439" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 97-42", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "356 N.C. 664", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 1511325 ], "year": 2003, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/356/0664-01" ] }, { "cite": "148 N.C. App. 472", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9366615 ], "year": 2002, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/148/0472-01" ] }, { "cite": "108 N.C. App. 85", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8522625 ], "year": 1992, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/108/0085-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 97-30", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "555 S.E.2d 276", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2001, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "354 N.C. 228", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 138401, 138313, 138378, 138487, 138394 ], "year": 2001, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/354/0228-04", "/nc/354/0228-02", "/nc/354/0228-01", "/nc/354/0228-05", "/nc/354/0228-03" ] }, { "cite": "550 S.E.2d 193", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 6, "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "197" }, { "page": "197" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "144 N.C. App. 312", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11434008 ], "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "319" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/144/0312-01" ] }, { "cite": "546 S.E.2d 570", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "573", "parenthetical": "noting statements made in an opinion which are not determinative of the issue before the reviewing court are dicta and not binding" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "353 N.C. 495", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 135872 ], "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "500", "parenthetical": "noting statements made in an opinion which are not determinative of the issue before the reviewing court are dicta and not binding" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/353/0495-01" ] }, { "cite": "108 N.C. App. 88", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 148-33.1", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "576 S.E.2d 323", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2003, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "558 S.E.2d 894", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "899" }, { "page": "899" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "379 S.E.2d 30", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "37" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "324 N.C. 373", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2483734 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "384" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/324/0373-01" ] }, { "cite": "422 S.E.2d 585", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 7, "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "585" }, { "page": "587" }, { "page": "586" }, { "page": "586" }, { "page": "585" }, { "page": "587" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "560 S.E.2d 885", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "unpublished" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "148 N.C. App. 405", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "unpublished" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 97-42", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "weight": 4, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "318" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "356 N.C. 664", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 1511325 ], "year": 2003, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/356/0664-01" ] }, { "cite": "148 N.C. App. 472", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9366615 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "479" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/148/0472-01" ] }, { "cite": "108 N.C. App. 85", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8522625 ], "year": 1992, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/108/0085-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 513, "char_count": 12013, "ocr_confidence": 0.745, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.757921374116729e-08, "percentile": 0.29913018094877347 }, "sha256": "6f8acc1595ad7c7496816ad658af0d96c079da33b5a32d3926d7344b8649f3f1", "simhash": "1:e331056ebfffa8a7", "word_count": 1918 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:45:28.578783+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges McGEE and JACKSON concur." ], "parties": [ "FRANK EASTON, Employee Plaintiff v. J.D. DENSON MOWING, Employer, GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Carrier, Defendants" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "STEELMAN, Judge.\nThe facts of this matter are not in dispute. Plaintiff, Frank Easton, was injured after falling from a tractor while working for J.D. Denson Mowing Company. Pursuant to an opinion and award filed 16 October 2000, plaintiff was awarded temporary total disability benefits for the compensable work:related injury he sustained. This Court affirmed that award in an unpublished opinion, Easton v. J.D. Denson Mowing Co., 148 N.C. App. 405, 560 S.E.2d 885 (2002) (unpublished). Plaintiff was awarded $365.78 per week in disability payments beginning on 3 September 1997, continuing until plaintiff was able to return to work or until otherwise ordered by the Industrial Commission. While receiving these disability payments, plaintiff was incarcerated for a probation violation from 22 January 2003 until 8 September 2003. Plaintiffs counsel informed defendants of plaintiff\u2019s possible incarceration on 4 April 2003, and confirmed the incarceration on 3 June 2003. On 24 July 2003, defendants filed a Form 24 seeking authorization to suspend defendant\u2019s disability payments until plaintiff\u2019s release from jail, which was granted on 28 August 2003. Plaintiff appealed and the Deputy Commissioner affirmed the suspension of benefits and allowed defendants a credit for the amounts previously paid while plaintiff was incarcerated. Plaintiff appealed to the Full Commission, which affirmed the Deputy Commissioner\u2019s ruling by an Opinion and Award entered 30 August 2004. Plaintiff appeals.\nIn plaintiff\u2019s first argument, he contends the Industrial Commission erred in authorizing defendant to suspend payment of plaintiff\u2019s workers\u2019 compensation disability payments as a result of his incarceration. We disagree.\nThis Court definitively addressed this issue in Parker v. Union Camp Corp., 108 N.C. App. 85, 422 S.E.2d 585 (1992). In Parker, the plaintiff suffered a compensable work-related injury and was receiving workers\u2019 compensation benefits. Id. at 86, 422 S.E.2d at 585. While receiving benefits, the plaintiff was convicted and sentenced to prison. This Court held the plaintiff was not entitled to receive workers\u2019 compensation benefits while in prison. Id. at 88, 422 S.E.2d at 587. This Court reasoned that the denial of benefits is reasonable where the state \u201cpurposefully deprives that person of the right to earn wages.\u201d Id. at 87, 422 S.E.2d at 586. The rationale behind this decision was that \u201cwhile he was in prison Mr. Parker did not have the right to earn wages; his incapacity to earn was caused by his imprisonment, not by his injury.\u201d Id. at 88, 422 S.E.2d at 586.\nPlaintiff first asserts that Parker is based upon an erroneous interpretation of the law and asks this Court to overrule Parker. This we cannot and will not do. We are bound by opinions of prior panels of this Court deciding the same issue. In the Matter of Appeal from Civil Penalty, 324 N.C. 373, 384, 379 S.E.2d 30, 37 (1989). The issue presented in this case is identical to that presented in Parker, thus we are bound by that decision.\nPlaintiff next contends Parker has been overruled by the case of Harris v. Thompson Contractors, Inc., 148 N.C. App. 472, 558 S.E.2d 894 (2002), aff'd, 356 N.C. 664, 576 S.E.2d 323 (2003). This is incorrect. In Harris, the plaintiff was serving a sentence in the Department of Corrections. After he was incarcerated, Harris wa\u00e1 allowed to work for defendant-employer under a work release program pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 148-33.1. This Court held Harris was entitled to receive compensation, stating:\nParker is distinguishable from the instant case. In Parker, the claimant was injured on the job before his incarceration and was already receiving benefits. Parker at 86, 422 S.E.2d at 585. Here, plaintiff was already incarcerated at the time of his injury and was involved in the work release program when his work related injury occurred.\nId. at 479, 558 S.E.2d at 899. Thus, Harris did not overrule Parker, nor could it. Civil Penalty, 324 N.C. at 379 S.E.2d at 37. Rather, Harris clearly distinguished Parker, and is not applicable to the instant case since plaintiff did not suffer a work-related injury while on work release.\nPlaintiff next asserts that the combination of dicta in Parker and the decision in Harris mandates that we reverse the Industrial Commission in this matter.\nIn Parker, the majority noted that its ruling may work a hardship to a plaintiffs dependents by suspending compensation benefits during periods of incarceration and suggested that the General Assembly may wish to examine this issue. Parker, 108 N.C. App. 88, 422 S.E.2d at 587. Plaintiff asserts that this language, coupled with the holding in Harris \u2014 that plaintiffs compensation could be paid to the Department of Corrections for disbursement in accordance with the work release program, requires reversal because of the adverse impact upon plaintiffs dependents in this case. The language in Parker discussing a plaintiffs dependents was dicta, not necessary to the resolution of the case. See State v. Jackson, 353 N.C. 495, 500, 546 S.E.2d 570, 573 (2001) (noting statements made in an opinion which are not determinative of the issue before the reviewing court are dicta and not binding). This Court did not state that the outcome of the case would have been different had there been any dependents. Rather, the opinion suggested that the General Assembly may want to consider changing the law to prevent dependents from being harmed by a plaintiffs incarceration. The legislature has not amended the relevant statutes since this Court rendered its decision in Parker.\nFinally, there is no indication in Harris that dependents were in any way implicated. The award entered by the Industrial Commission, and affirmed by this Court, simply directed that the compensation be paid to the Department of Corrections for disposition in accordance with the work release program. Harris, 148 N.C. App. at 479, 558 S.E.2d at 899. Each of plaintiffs arguments, along with any other assertions made under this argument, are without merit.\nIn plaintiffs second argument, he contends that if defendant was entitled to suspend his workers\u2019 compensation benefits while he was incarcerated, the Industrial Commission erred in permitting defendant to take an immediate credit for payments made during plaintiffs incarceration by reducing his ongoing payments by $100.00 per week, in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 97-42. We disagree.\nIt is within the Commission\u2019s discretion to award an employer who makes payments that are not due and payable a credit for those payments pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 97-42. Thomas v. B.F. Goodrich, 144 N.C. App. 312, 319, 550 S.E.2d 193, 197, disc. review denied, 354 N.C. 228, 555 S.E.2d 276 (2001). We note that plaintiff does not contest the Commission\u2019s authority to award a credit, but rather contests the manner in which the Commission assessed the credit.\nWhen the Commission grants a credit to an employer for payments made under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 97-42, it must be made by shortening the period during which payments are due. Id. at 318, 550 S.E.2d at 197. In dicta, however, this Court stated that \u201c[w]hen ... an employee receives an award of permanent disability to be paid during his lifetime, it is not possible to \u2018shorten[] the period during which compensation must be paid.\u2019 \u201d Id. Thus, in order to give an employer a credit, this Court reasoned that the Commission could order the employer to reduce the amount of the employee\u2019s weekly payments in order to recoup the amount of the credit. Id. This Court reasoned that to hold otherwise would contravene the legislature\u2019s intent of encouraging employer\u2019s to make voluntary payments while the employee\u2019s claim was being litigated. Id.\nWe find the reasoning in Thomas to be persuasive. The fact the plaintiff was permanently disabled was not key to this Court\u2019s reasoning in Thomas. Rather, the fundamental principle enunciated was that where an award of compensation is for an indefinite period of time, it is not possible to shorten the period during which compensation must be paid; therefore, the Commission may order the employer to reduce the amount of the employee\u2019s payments in order to allow the employer to recoup the amount of the credit. Id. This is such a case. Here, the Commission awarded plaintiff total temporary disability, which has no specific ending time. In fact, plaintiff has already received total temporary disability for eight years, with little likelihood of plaintiff ever returning to work. If plaintiff never returns to work, his benefits will end at his death, and there will be no opportunity to shorten the period of disability. If plaintiff returns to work, his entitlement to any temporary partial disability or permanent partial benefits will immediately terminate, and there will be no opportunity to shorten the period of disability. See N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 97-30 to -31 (2004). Nor is there anything in the record to suggest that plaintiff will or will not ultimately receive a permanent partial disability award. We believe this result would contravene the intent of the legislature.\nAccordingly, we conclude the Commission did not err in permitting defendant to take an immediate credit for payments made during plaintiff\u2019s incarceration and permitting defendant to deduct $100.00 per week from its ongoing payments.\nAFFIRMED.\nJudges McGEE and JACKSON concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "STEELMAN, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Scudder & Hedrick, by Samuel A. Scudder, for plaintiff-appellant.", "Teague, Campbell, Dennis & Gorham, L.L.P., by Bruce A. Hamilton and William A. Bulfer, for defendants-appellants." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "FRANK EASTON, Employee Plaintiff v. J.D. DENSON MOWING, Employer, GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Carrier, Defendants\nNo. COA04-1548\n(Filed 20 September 2005)\n1. Workers\u2019 Compensation\u2014 suspension of benefits \u2014 incarceration of plaintiff\nThe Industrial Commission did not err in a workers\u2019 compensation case by authorizing defendant to suspend payment of plaintiffs workers\u2019 compensation disability payments as a result of plaintiff\u2019s incarceration, because: (1) the denial of benefits is reasonable where the state purposefully deprives that person of the right to earn wages caused by the imprisonment and not by the injury; (2) the issue presented in this case is identical to that presented in Parker v. Union Camp Corp., 108 N.C. App. 85 (1992), and thus the Court of Appeals is bound by that decision; (3) contrary to plaintiff\u2019s assertion, Parker was not overruled by the case of Harris v. Thompson Contractors, Inc., 148 N.C. App. 472 (2002), aff\u2019d, 356 N.C. 664 (2003), but Harris merely distinguished Parker since plaintiff did not suffer a work-related injury while on work release; and (3) neither Parker nor Harris states that the outcome of the case would have been different had there been any dependents, and that decision is best left to the General Assembly.\n2. Workers\u2019 Compensation\u2014 incarceration of plaintiff \u2014 credit to employer for payments made during incarceration\nThe Industrial Commission did not err in a workers\u2019 compensation case by permitting defendant to take an immediate credit for payments made during plaintiff\u2019s incarceration by reducing his ongoing payments by $100.00 per week allegedly in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 97-42, because: (1) where an award of compensation is for an indefinite period of time, it is not possible to shorten the period during which compensation must be paid and therefore the Commission may order the employer to reduce the amount of the employee\u2019s payments in order to allow the employer to recoup the amount of the credit; and (2) in the instant case the Commission awarded plaintiff temporary total disability which has no specific ending time, and there is nothing in the record to suggest that plaintiff will or will not ultimately receive a permanent partial disability award.\nAppeal by plaintiff from opinion and award entered 30 August 2004 by the North Carolina Industrial Commission. Heard in the Court of Appeals 18 August 2005.\nScudder & Hedrick, by Samuel A. Scudder, for plaintiff-appellant.\nTeague, Campbell, Dennis & Gorham, L.L.P., by Bruce A. Hamilton and William A. Bulfer, for defendants-appellants." }, "file_name": "0439-01", "first_page_order": 469, "last_page_order": 474 }