{ "id": 8350225, "name": "MAMIE L. DAVIS, Employee, Plaintiff v. COLUMBUS COUNTY SCHOOLS, Employer, SELF-INSURED, KEY RISK MANAGEMENT, Servicing Agent, Defendants", "name_abbreviation": "Davis v. Columbus County Schools", "decision_date": "2005-12-20", "docket_number": "No. COA04-864", "first_page": "95", "last_page": "102", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "175 N.C. App. 95" } ], "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": "613 S.E.2d 356", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12632971 ], "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "358", "parenthetical": "holding that appellate review not preserved where criminal defendant failed to properly move for dismissal at end of trial" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/613/0356-01" ] }, { "cite": "615 S.E.2d 53", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12633319 ], "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "56", "parenthetical": "holding that review not properly before court where appellant failed to object at trial and to assign error to challenged testimony" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/615/0053-01" ] }, { "cite": "616 S.E.2d 594", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12633596 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "599" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/616/0594-01" ] }, { "cite": "620 S.E.2d 25", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12634104 ], "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "27", "parenthetical": "\"Plaintiff's noncompliance with the [appellate] rules ... is not substantive nor egregious enough to warrant dismissal of plaintiff's appeal\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/620/0025-01" ] }, { "cite": "614 S.E.2d 396", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12633142 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "400" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/614/0396-01" ] }, { "cite": "352 S.E.2d 690", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "694" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "84 N.C. App. 188", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 12167998 ], "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "196" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/84/0188-01" ] }, { "cite": "532 S.E.2d 207", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "211-12", "parenthetical": "emphasis added" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "138 N.C. App. 593", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11080920 ], "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "599-600", "parenthetical": "emphasis added" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/138/0593-01" ] }, { "cite": "265 S.E.2d 389", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "391" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "300 N.C. 164", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8559969 ], "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "167" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/300/0164-01" ] }, { "cite": "64 S.E.2d 265", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1951, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "266" }, { "page": "267" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "233 N.C. 372", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8608280 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1951, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "374" }, { "page": "374" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/233/0372-01" ] }, { "cite": "136 S.E.2d 643", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1964, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "645" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "262 N.C. 272", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8566948 ], "year": 1964, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "274" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/262/0272-01" ] }, { "cite": "350 S.E.2d 858", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1986, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "318 N.C. 696", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4734241, 4735394, 4739370, 4734805, 4736472 ], "year": 1986, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/318/0696-03", "/nc/318/0696-04", "/nc/318/0696-05", "/nc/318/0696-02", "/nc/318/0696-01" ] }, { "cite": "344 S.E.2d 550", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "552" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "81 N.C. App. 377", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8523185 ], "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "380" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/81/0377-01" ] }, { "cite": "300 S.E.2d 899", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 4, "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "902" }, { "page": "902" }, { "page": "902", "parenthetical": "internal citation omitted" }, { "parenthetical": "internal citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "61 N.C. App. 468", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8521774 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "472" }, { "page": "472" }, { "page": "472" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/61/0468-01" ] }, { "cite": "200 S.E.2d 32", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1973, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "36", "parenthetical": "internal citation and quotation marks omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "284 N.C. 126", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8560564 ], "year": 1973, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "131", "parenthetical": "internal citation and quotation marks omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/284/0126-01" ] }, { "cite": "455 S.E.2d 453", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "454" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "118 N.C. App. 444", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11918942 ], "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "446" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/118/0444-01" ] }, { "cite": "292 S.E.2d 763", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "765-66", "parenthetical": "intemal quotation marks and citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "58 N.C. App. 113", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8523440 ], "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "116", "parenthetical": "intemal quotation marks and citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/58/0113-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 97-2", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(6)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "509 S.E.2d 411", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "414", "parenthetical": "internal citation and quotation marks omitted" }, { "page": "414" } ], "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" }, { "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": 2, "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "553", "parenthetical": "citing Adams v. AVX Corp., 349 N.C. 676, 509 S.E.2d 411 (1998)" }, { "page": "552-53" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "352 N.C. 109", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 684964 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "116", "parenthetical": "citing Adams v. AVX Corp., 349 N.C. 676, 509 S.E.2d 411 (1998)" }, { "page": "115-16" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/352/0109-01" ] }, { "cite": "170 N.C. App. 692", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9006671 ], "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "holding that appellate review not preserved where criminal defendant failed to properly move for dismissal at end of trial" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/170/0692-01" ] }, { "cite": "171 N.C. App. 675", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8439114 ], "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "holding that review not properly before court where appellant failed to object at trial and to assign error to challenged testimony" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/171/0675-01" ] }, { "cite": "172 N.C. App. 530", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8320720 ], "year": 2005, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/172/0530-01" ] }, { "cite": "173 N.C. App. 481", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8353857 ], "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "\"Plaintiff's noncompliance with the [appellate] rules ... is not substantive nor egregious enough to warrant dismissal of plaintiff's appeal\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/173/0481-01" ] }, { "cite": "171 N.C. App. 187", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8436029 ], "year": 2005, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/171/0187-01" ] }, { "cite": "610 S.E.2d 360", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "361" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "359 N.C. 400", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 3799435 ], "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "402" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/359/0400-01" ] }, { "cite": "590 S.E.2d 458", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "460" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "162 N.C. App. 328", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8916897 ], "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "331" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/162/0328-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 855, "char_count": 17566, "ocr_confidence": 0.737, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.0469998507338662e-07, "percentile": 0.5523654081763067 }, "sha256": "d2529af49d7f24761713de2dac651193636ca0efc041efebe1f303f3d0985ce4", "simhash": "1:a7e12a9a963ba03e", "word_count": 2846 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:29:36.119960+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Chief Judge MARTIN and Judge JACKSON concur." ], "parties": [ "MAMIE L. DAVIS, Employee, Plaintiff v. COLUMBUS COUNTY SCHOOLS, Employer, SELF-INSURED, KEY RISK MANAGEMENT, Servicing Agent, Defendants" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "HUDSON, Judge.\nPlaintiff alleges that she sustained a work-related injury on 26 October 1998. Shortly thereafter, defendants filed a Form 19, recording that a co-worker grabbed plaintiff by the arm, and spun her around, causing pain. Defendants paid plaintiffs medical bills from 26 October to 10 November 1998 while the claim was being invest\u00ed-gated. Some time later that fall, plaintiff filed a Form 33 requesting a hearing and further compensation. Defendants responded by filing a Form 33R on 7 December 2000, in which they denied compensability for lack of causation. After a hearing on 9 May 2002, Deputy Commissioner Morgan S. Chapman-granted several extensions for the parties to complete medical depositions and filed an opinion and award on 30 April 2003, denying plaintiffs claim for workers\u2019 compensation. Deputy Commissioner Chapman held that plaintiff \u201cdid not sustain an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of her employment.\u201d Plaintiff appealed to the Full Commission, which reversed the Deputy Commissioner\u2019s decision on 22 March 2004. Defendants appeal. We affirm.\nThe facts as found by the Commission show that plaintiff was employed as a school social worker with the Columbus County Schools. On 26 October 1998, plaintiff was standing in the hall talking to students when the band teacher, who wished to speak with her, came up behind her, grabbed her by the arm, and spun her around. Plaintiff felt immediate pain in her left arm. Prior to this incident, plaintiff had been experiencing problems with her left shoulder and Dr. Ogden, an orthopedic surgeon, had diagnosed her with a frozen shoulder and given her an injection on 1 October 1998. Immediately after the incident on 26 October 1998, plaintiff received medical treatment from Dr. Hodgson, her family physician. She informed Dr. Hodgson of her prior shoulder problems and her diagnosis of a frozen shoulder and explained the event from earlier in the day. Dr. Hodgson\u2019s exam revealed significant reduction of range of motion with exquisite tenderness in the shoulder and left upper back. He diagnosed her with shoulder and arm pain of unclear etiology.\nPlaintiff returned to Dr. Hodgson on 3 November 1998 and reported severe pain and swelling in her left arm and the left side of her neck. He diagnosed her with pericervical hypersthesias and paresthesias of undetermined etiology. Dr. Hodgson advised plaintiff not to work. On 2 February 1999, he instructed her that she could return to work on 15 February 1999.\nOn 16 December 1998, plaintiff began treatment with Dr. Speer, an orthopedic surgeon at Duke University Medical Center, while continuing treatment with Dr. Hodgson. Dr. Speer diagnosed her with a frozen shoulder and possible reflex sympathetic dystrophy and recommended that she wear a sling and cold therapy pads. On 27 January 1999, plaintiff returned to Dr. Speer and reported improvement and Dr. Speer recommended gentle physical therapy. On 14 June 1999, plaintiff reported tremendous improvement and Dr. Speer recommended another month of physical therapy and released her from his care. Plaintiff returned to work in March 1999.\nBefore reaching the merits of defendants\u2019 arguments, we must address certain violations of the rules of appellate procedure. Rule 10(c)(1) requires an appellant, in assigning error, to set forth the legal basis for the assignment and to \u201cdirect[] the attention of the appellate court to the particular error about which the question is made, with clear and specific record or transcript references.\u201d N.C. R. App. P. 10(c)(1) (2004). Here, defendants made the following three assignments of error:\nI. The Full Commission erred in finding Plaintiff sustained an injury by accident to her left arm arising out of and in the course of her employment with defendant that aggravated or exacerbated her pre-existing left shoulder condition. (R p 20).\nII. The Full Commission erred in ordering that benefits and medical expenses be paid to Plaintiff by Defendant. (R p 20).\nIII. The Full Commission\u2019s findings and conclusions are not supported by competent evidence. (R p 20).\n(emphasis added). Defendants failed to specify any enumerated findings of fact or conclusions of law, but each assignment of error refers to page twenty of the record, and on page twenty, the following finding of fact appears:\n11. The competent evidence in the record establishes that plaintiff sustained an injury by accident to her left shoulder arising out of and in the course of her employment with defendant that aggravated or exacerbated her pre-existing left shoulder condition.\n(emphasis added). Defendants\u2019 first assignment of error, which they bring forward with Argument I in their brief, quotes from this finding of fact verbatim. Thus, we have no trouble discerning which finding of fact defendants challenge by this assignment of error. Similarly, the second assignment of error clearly corresponds to the second and third conclusions of law, which granted plaintiff disability compensation and medical expenses, respectively. The third assignment of error, by itself, is too general to preserve for review objections to specific findings of fact. See In Re Adoption of Shuler, 162 N.C. App. 328, 331, 590 S.E.2d 458, 460 (2004). However, we conclude that when considered along with the first two assignments of error, it adequately sets forth the legal basis for the other assignments of error.\nRule 2 of the Appellate Rules of Procedure allows this Court to review an appeal, despite rules violations. N.C. R. App. P. 2 (2005). In Viar v. N. C. DOT, our Supreme Court admonished this Court not to use Rule 2 to \u201ccreate an appeal for an appellant,\u201d and vacated the decision of the Court of Appeals. 359 N.C. 400, 402, 610 S.E.2d 360, 361 (2005). However, in Viar, neither of appellant\u2019s assignments of error made specific record references and the Court of Appeals had reviewed an assignment of error which was not argued in appellant\u2019s brief, as required by Rule 28(b)(6). Id. Here, defendants did bring forth their assignments of error with record references in their brief.\nFurthermore, this Court, after Viar, has chosen to review certain appeals in spite of rules violations. In Youse v. Duke Energy Corp., this Court reviewed appellant\u2019s appeal in spite of at least eight rules violations, because \u201c[d] espite the Rules violations, we are able to determine the issues in this case on appeal.\u201d 171 N.C. App. 187, 614 S.E.2d 396, 400 (2005). The Court noted that appellee, \u201cin filing a brief that thoroughly responds to [appellant\u2019s] arguments on appeal, was put on sufficient notice of the issues on appeal.\u201d Id., citing Viar. See also Coley v. State, 173 N.C. App. 481, 620 S.E.2d 25, 27 (2005) (\u201cPlaintiff\u2019s noncompliance with the [appellate] rules ... is not substantive nor egregious enough to warrant dismissal of plaintiff\u2019s appeal\u201d). In contrast, the Court declined to address appellant\u2019s broadside assignments of error that were not \u201cfollowed by citations to the record or transcript [and] none of the assignments of error specify which findings respondent challenges.\u201d N.C. Dep\u2019t of Crime Control and Public Safety v. Greene, 172 N.C. App. 530, 616 S.E.2d 594, 599 (2005). The Court noted that as one assignment of error could have referred to several of the ALJ\u2019s and the trial court\u2019s findings of fact, it could not \u201cdetermine which findings of fact respondent challenges' and therefore cannot review this assignment of error.\u201d Id. Here, as discussed, we can easily determine which finding of fact defendants challenge. Cf., In Re A.E., J.E., 171 N.C. App. 675, 615 S.E.2d 53, 56 (2005) (holding that review not properly before court where appellant failed to object at trial and to assign error to challenged testimony); State v. Buchanan, 170 N.C. App. 692, 613 S.E.2d 356, 358 (2005) (holding that appellate review not preserved where criminal defendant failed to properly move for dismissal at end of trial).\nDefendants argue first that the Commission erred in finding that plaintiff sustained an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of her employment that aggravated or exacerbated her preexisting left shoulder condition. We disagree.\nWe review decisions of the Industrial Commission to determine \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'l Corp., 352 N.C. 109, 116, 530 S.E.2d 549, 553 (2000) (citing Adams v. AVX Corp., 349 N.C. 676, 509 S.E.2d 411 (1998)). This Court may not \u201cweigh the evidence and decide the issue on the basis of its weight,\u201d but must only determine whether the record contains \u201cany evidence tending to support the finding.\u201d Adams, 349 N.C. at 681, 509 S.E.2d at 414 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). The Commission is the \u201csole judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence,\u201d and thus, its findings are binding if supported by any evidence, even if the evidence could also have supported a contrary finding. Deese, 352 N.C. at 115-16, 530 S.E.2d at 552-53. Furthermore, on appeal, this Court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff. Adams, 349 N.C. at 681, 509 S.E.2d at 414.\nThe Workers\u2019 Compensation Act states that \u201c \u2018[i]ujury and personal injury\u2019 shall mean only injury by accident arising out of and in the course of the employment.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 97-2 (6).\n[A]n injury arising out of and in the course of employment is com-pensable only if it is caused by an accident.... The term accident, under the Act, has been defined as an unlooked for and untoward event, and a result produced by a fortuitous cause. Unusualness and unexpectedness are its essence. To justify an award of compensation, the injury must involve more than the carrying on of usual and customary duties in the usual way.\nDavis v. Raleigh Rental Center, 58 N.C. App. 113, 116, 292 S.E.2d 763, 765-66 (1982)(intemal quotation marks and citations omitted). Here, the Commission found and concluded, in relevant part, that:\n4. On October 26, 1998 plaintiff reported for work with her arm in a sling. As she stood in a hallway talking to a student, the band teacher came up from behind her, grabbed her left arm and spun her around to face him so that he could ask her a question. Plaintiff experienced an immediate onset of pain when this occurred. . .\n10. The circumstances of plaintiff\u2019s October 26, 1998 injury constituted an interruption of her normal work routine and the introduction thereby of unusual conditions likely to result in unexpected circumstances.\n11. The competent evidence in the record establishes that plaintiff sustained an injury by accident to her left shoulder arising out of and in the course of her employment with defendant that aggravated or exacerbated her pre-existing left shoulder condition.\n***\n1. On October 26, 1998, plaintiff sustained an injury by accident to her left arm arising out of and in the course of her employment.\nBecause defendants only preserved review of finding of fact eleven, the other unchallenged findings of fact are conclusive on appeal. First Union Nat\u2019l Bank v. Bob Dunn Ford, Inc., 118 N.C. App. 444, 446, 455 S.E.2d 453, 454 (1995).\nDefendants argue that the Commission erred by finding and concluding that plaintiff sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of her employment. This argument addresses finding of fact number eleven, which is a mixed finding of fact and conclusion of law. \u201cWhether an accident arises out of the employment is a mixed question of fact and law, and the [factual] finding of the Commission is conclusive if supported by any competent evidence.\u201d Lee v. F. M. Henderson & Associates, 284 N.C. 126, 131, 200 S.E.2d 32, 36 (1973) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). Here, the Commission found, in finding of fact four, that plaintiff was injured while at work, \u201c[a]s she stood in a hallway talking to a student\u201d and \u201cthe band teacher came up behind her, grabbed her left arm and spun her around so that he could ask her a question,\u201d and concluded that plaintiff\u2019s injury arose from her employment. As discussed above, findings four and ten are conclusive on appeal, and we conclude that they support finding eleven and the Commission\u2019s conclusion, as plaintiff\u2019s injury \u201chad its origin in a risk connected with the employment, and [] flowed from that source as a rational consequence.\u201d Pittman v. Twin City Laundry & Cleaners, 61 N.C. App. 468, 472, 300 S.E.2d 899, 902 (1983). Plaintiff was grabbed by a co-worker who wished to ask her a question, a situation which had its origin in the employment.\nIt is well-established that in order to be compensable, an accident must both \u201carise out of\u2019 and happen \u201cin the course of employment,\u201d and the two phrases are not synonymous, but impose separate conditions which must each be satisfied. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 97-2(6); Murray v. Biggerstaff, 81 N.C. App. 377, 380, 344 S.E.2d 550, 552, disc. review denied, 318 N.C. 696, 350 S.E.2d 858 (1986). However, defendants here contend only that the accident did not arise out of plaintiffs employment. The term \u201carising out of\u2019 refers to the connection of the accident to the employment. Pittman, 61 N.C. App. at 472, 300 S.E.2d at 902. \u201cTo be compensable an injury must spring from the employment or have its origin therein.\u201d Perry v. American Bakeries Co., 262 N.C. 272, 274, 136 S.E.2d 643, 645 (1964). Furthermore, \u201c[f]or an accident to \u2018arise out of the employment, it is necessary that the conditions or obligations of the employment put the employee in the position or at the place where the accident occurs.\u201d Pittman, 61 N.C. App. at 472, 300 S.E.2d at 902 (internal citation omitted). The accident \u201cneed not have been foreseen or expected, but after the event it must appear to have had its origin in a risk connected with the employment, and to have flowed from that source as a rational consequence.\u201d Id. (internal citation omitted).\nIn order for a Workers\u2019 Compensation claim to be compensable, there must be proof of a causal relationship between the injury and the employment. Anderson v. Northwestern Motor Co., 233 N.C. 372, 374, 64 S.E.2d 265, 266 (1951). \u201c[W]here the exact nature and probable genesis of a particular type of injury involves complicated medical questions far removed from the ordinary experience and knowledge of laymen, only an expert can give competent opinion evidence as to the cause of the injury.\u201d Click v. Freight Carriers, Inc., 300 N.C. 164, 167, 265 S.E.2d 389, 391 (1980). Expert testimony need not show that the work incident caused the injury to a reasonable degree of medical certainty; \u201c[a]ll that is necessary is that an expert express an opinion that a particular cause was capable of producing this injurious result.\u201d Peagler v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 138 N.C. App. 593, 599-600, 532 S.E.2d 207, 211-12 (2000) (emphasis added). When an injury by accident accelerates or aggravates an employee\u2019s pre-existing condition, the injury is compensable. Anderson, 233 N.C. at 374, 64 S.E.2d at 267. \u201cIn such a case, where an injury has aggravated an existing condition and thus proximately caused the incapacity, the relative contributions of the accident and the pre-existing condition will not be weighed.\u201d Wilder v. Barbour Boat Works, 84 N.C. App. 188, 196, 352 S.E.2d 690, 694 (1987). We conclude that there was sufficient competent evidence to support finding of fact number eleven, and that this finding, in turn, supports the Commission\u2019s conclusions that plaintiff\u2019s injury by accident exacerbated her pre-existing condition and thus entitled her to temporary total disability compensation.\nIn their next argument, defendants assert that the Commission erred in ordering medical benefits be paid by defendants. Defendants argue that because the Commission erred in concluding that plaintiff\u2019s accident aggravated her pre-existing shoulder condition, it improperly awarded medical benefits for it. Because we have concluded otherwise, for the reasons discussed above, the Commission\u2019s award of medical benefits for plaintiff\u2019s compensable injury is proper.\nAffirmed.\nChief Judge MARTIN and Judge JACKSON concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "HUDSON, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Stacey A. Phipps, for the State.", "Brumbaugh, Mu & King, P.A., by Nicole D. Wray, for plaintiff - appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "MAMIE L. DAVIS, Employee, Plaintiff v. COLUMBUS COUNTY SCHOOLS, Employer, SELF-INSURED, KEY RISK MANAGEMENT, Servicing Agent, Defendants\nNo. COA04-864\n(Filed 20 December 2005)\n1. Appeal and Error\u2014 assignments of error \u2014 lack of enumerated findings \u2014 basis of assignment of error easily determined\nAssignments of error were heard under Rule 2 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure despite the lack of enumerated findings or conclusions of law therein where the legal basis of the assignments of error could be determined easily.\n2. Workers\u2019 Compensation\u2014 injury by accident \u2014 arm grabbed by fellow teacher\nThere was sufficient evidence to support a finding and conclusion that a teacher whose arm was grabbed by another teacher suffered an injury by accident which exacerbated her pre-existing condition.\n3. Workers\u2019 Compensation\u2014 medical benefits \u2014 aggravation of existing condition\nMedical benefits were properly awarded where there was no error in concluding that plaintiffs accident aggravated her preexisting shoulder condition.\nAppeal by defendants from opinion and award entered by the North Carolina Industrial Commission on 22 March 2004. Heard in the Court of Appeals 21 March 2005.\nAttorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Stacey A. Phipps, for the State.\nBrumbaugh, Mu & King, P.A., by Nicole D. Wray, for plaintiff - appellee." }, "file_name": "0095-01", "first_page_order": 129, "last_page_order": 136 }