{
  "id": 8242544,
  "name": "SANDRA ROSE, Employee, Plaintiff v. CITY OF ROCKY MOUNT, Self-Insured Employer, COMPENSATION CLAIMS SOLUTIONS, Administrator, Defendants",
  "name_abbreviation": "Rose v. City of Rocky Mount",
  "decision_date": "2006-12-05",
  "docket_number": "No. COA05-1645",
  "first_page": "392",
  "last_page": "403",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "180 N.C. App. 392"
    }
  ],
  "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": "630 S.E.2d 681",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        12635993
      ],
      "year": 2006,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "689",
          "parenthetical": "\"[O]ur courts have applied an 'increased risk' analysis and have rejected the 'positional risk' doctrine ....\""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/se2d/630/0681-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "596 S.E.2d 31",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2004,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "37"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "164 N.C. App. 339",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8897276
      ],
      "year": 2004,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/164/0339-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "518 S.E.2d 200",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1999,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "205"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "134 N.C. App. 452",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11145362
      ],
      "year": 1999,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "459"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/134/0452-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "606 S.E.2d 696",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2005,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "701"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "168 N.C. App. 23",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8468017
      ],
      "year": 2005,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "30-31"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/168/0023-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "449 S.E.2d 762",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "764"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "117 N.C. App. 126",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8524468
      ],
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "128"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/117/0126-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "470 S.E.2d 352",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1996,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "354",
          "parenthetical": "quoting Estes v. N.C. State Univ., 117 N.C. App. 126, 128, 449 S.E.2d 762, 764 (1994)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "122 N.C. App. 473",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11918005
      ],
      "year": 1996,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "477",
          "parenthetical": "quoting Estes v. N.C. State Univ., 117 N.C. App. 126, 128, 449 S.E.2d 762, 764 (1994)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/122/0473-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 97-88",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "year": 2003,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "360 S.E.2d 86",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1987,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "reversing the Commission's finding that job related stress was not cause of officer's suicide and remanding for reconsideration"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "320 N.C. 631",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4723558,
        4724691,
        4730039,
        4730552,
        4729849
      ],
      "year": 1987,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "reversing the Commission's finding that job related stress was not cause of officer's suicide and remanding for reconsideration"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/320/0631-05",
        "/nc/320/0631-03",
        "/nc/320/0631-04",
        "/nc/320/0631-01",
        "/nc/320/0631-02"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "355 S.E.2d 147",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1987,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "150"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "85 N.C. App. 541",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "year": 1987,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "544"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "463 S.E.2d 559",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1995,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "563",
          "parenthetical": "holding that depression is an occupational disease for law enforcement officials"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "120 N.C. App. 783",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11918192
      ],
      "year": 1995,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "788",
          "parenthetical": "holding that depression is an occupational disease for law enforcement officials"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/120/0783-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "468 S.E.2d 506",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1996,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "510",
          "parenthetical": "holding that clinical depression leading to temporary total disability was a compensable work related injury for police officer because of nature of work"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "121 N.C. App. 688",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11919771
      ],
      "year": 1996,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "694",
          "parenthetical": "holding that clinical depression leading to temporary total disability was a compensable work related injury for police officer because of nature of work"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/121/0688-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "178 N.C. App. 25",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8376121
      ],
      "year": 2006,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "36",
          "parenthetical": "\"[O]ur courts have applied an 'increased risk' analysis and have rejected the 'positional risk' doctrine ....\""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/178/0025-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "407 S.E.2d 183",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1991,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "189"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "329 N.C. 394",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2554014
      ],
      "year": 1991,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "403"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/329/0394-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "70 S.E.2d 706",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1952,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "708-09"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "235 N.C. 602",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8626215
      ],
      "year": 1952,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "605"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/235/0602-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "162 S.E.2d 619",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1968,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "620"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "2 N.C. App. 126",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8551409
      ],
      "year": 1968,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "128"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/2/0126-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "85 S.E.2d 596",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1955,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "599"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "241 N.C. 448",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8612018
      ],
      "year": 1955,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "451"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/241/0448-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "399 S.E.2d 120",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1990,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "327 N.C. 633",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2499042,
        2495332,
        2498001,
        2496891,
        2495677
      ],
      "year": 1990,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/327/0633-01",
        "/nc/327/0633-04",
        "/nc/327/0633-03",
        "/nc/327/0633-02",
        "/nc/327/0633-05"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "397 S.E.2d 217",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1990,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "327 N.C. 482",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2498506,
        2499917,
        2493454,
        2495514,
        2493374
      ],
      "year": 1990,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/327/0482-04",
        "/nc/327/0482-05",
        "/nc/327/0482-01",
        "/nc/327/0482-02",
        "/nc/327/0482-03"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "392 S.E.2d 660",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1990,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "662",
          "parenthetical": "citation omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "99 N.C. App. 125",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8521293
      ],
      "year": 1990,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "129",
          "parenthetical": "citation omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/99/0125-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "547 S.E.2d 17",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2001,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "353 N.C. 381",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        135848,
        135570,
        135571,
        135636
      ],
      "year": 2001,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/353/0381-03",
        "/nc/353/0381-02",
        "/nc/353/0381-04",
        "/nc/353/0381-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "266 S.E.2d 760",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1980,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "762"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "47 N.C. App. 140",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8548488
      ],
      "year": 1980,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "144"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/47/0140-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "535 S.E.2d 577",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2000,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "580",
          "parenthetical": "quoting Porterfield v. RPC Corp., 47 N.C. App. 140, 144, 266 S.E.2d 760, 762 (1980)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "140 N.C. App. 58",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        12121612
      ],
      "year": 2000,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "61-62",
          "parenthetical": "quoting Porterfield v. RPC Corp., 47 N.C. App. 140, 144, 266 S.E.2d 760, 762 (1980)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/140/0058-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "581 S.E.2d 750",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2003,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "752"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "357 N.C. 228",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        491657
      ],
      "year": 2003,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "231"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/357/0228-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "488 S.E.2d 801",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1997,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "346 N.C. 546",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        139458,
        139363,
        139469,
        139548,
        139613
      ],
      "year": 1997,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/346/0546-05",
        "/nc/346/0546-03",
        "/nc/346/0546-04",
        "/nc/346/0546-02",
        "/nc/346/0546-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "484 S.E.2d 853",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1997,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "856"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "126 N.C. App. 354",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11710610
      ],
      "year": 1997,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "357"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/126/0354-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "509 S.E.2d 411",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1998,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "413"
        },
        {
          "page": "413"
        },
        {
          "page": "414"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "349 N.C. 676",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        571666
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1998,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "680-81"
        },
        {
          "page": "680"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/349/0676-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "423 S.E.2d 827",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1992,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "829",
          "parenthetical": "upholding a conviction on a count of assault on a law enforcement officer, where the defendant assaulted off-duty but uniformed police officers at restaurant during the course of the altercation"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "108 N.C. App. 349",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8524295
      ],
      "year": 1992,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "351-52",
          "parenthetical": "upholding a conviction on a count of assault on a law enforcement officer, where the defendant assaulted off-duty but uniformed police officers at restaurant during the course of the altercation"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/108/0349-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "573 S.E.2d 662",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2002,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "667"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "155 N.C. App. 381",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        9250316
      ],
      "year": 2002,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "389"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/155/0381-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "591 S.E.2d 548",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2004,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "for reasons stated in the dissent"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "358 N.C. 129",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2985645
      ],
      "year": 2004,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "for reasons stated in the dissent"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/358/0129-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "582 S.E.2d 389",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2003,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "395",
          "parenthetical": "Steelman, J., dissenting"
        },
        {
          "page": "398"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "159 N.C. App. 1",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8953713
      ],
      "year": 2003,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "12",
          "parenthetical": "Steelman, J., dissenting"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/159/0001-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "376 S.E.2d 745",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1989,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "748",
          "parenthetical": "citation omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "324 N.C. 190",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2486024
      ],
      "year": 1989,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "195",
          "parenthetical": "citation omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/324/0190-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "241 S.E.2d 684",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1978,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "691"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "294 N.C. 382",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8573223
      ],
      "year": 1978,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "393"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/294/0382-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "276 S.E.2d 726",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1981,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "729"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "51 N.C. App. 418",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        2645332
      ],
      "year": 1981,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "421"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/51/0418-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "178 S.W.3d 470",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.3d",
      "case_ids": [
        9002534
      ],
      "year": 2005,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "481",
          "parenthetical": "shooting of uniformed sheriff at fish fry constituted murder of police official engaged in his duties"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/sw3d/178/0470-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "421 S.E.2d 569",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 1992,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "575"
        },
        {
          "page": "574"
        },
        {
          "page": "577"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "332 N.C. 461",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2504044
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1992,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "472"
        },
        {
          "page": "472"
        },
        {
          "page": "477"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/332/0461-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "462 S.E.2d 490",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1995,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "491"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "341 N.C. 712",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        793235
      ],
      "year": 1995,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "714"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/341/0712-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "364 S.E.2d 417",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1988,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "423",
          "parenthetical": "holding that an injury is compensable only if \"the nature of the employment was a contributing proximate cause of the injury, and one to which the employee would not have been equally exposed apart from the employment\""
        },
        {
          "page": "423"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "321 N.C. 350",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2566796
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1988,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "358",
          "parenthetical": "holding that an injury is compensable only if \"the nature of the employment was a contributing proximate cause of the injury, and one to which the employee would not have been equally exposed apart from the employment\""
        },
        {
          "page": "358"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/321/0350-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "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",
      "year": 1996,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "679"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "124 N.C. App. 526",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11890015
      ],
      "year": 1996,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "528"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/124/0526-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "266 S.E.2d 676",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1980,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "678"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "300 N.C. 329",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8561147
      ],
      "year": 1980,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "331"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/300/0329-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "585 S.E.2d 760",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2003,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "357 N.C. 460",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        491744,
        491866,
        491659,
        491910
      ],
      "year": 2003,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/357/0460-04",
        "/nc/357/0460-01",
        "/nc/357/0460-02",
        "/nc/357/0460-03"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "579 S.E.2d 110",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2003,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "118"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "157 N.C. App. 168",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        9185540
      ],
      "year": 2003,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "180"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/157/0168-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "568 S.E.2d 626",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2002,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "628"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "151 N.C. App. 717",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        9082176
      ],
      "year": 2002,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "720"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/151/0717-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "141 S.E.2d 632",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1965,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "633"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "264 N.C. 401",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8573590
      ],
      "year": 1965,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "402"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/264/0401-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "530 S.E.2d 549",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2000,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "553"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "352 N.C. 109",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        684964
      ],
      "year": 2000,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "116"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/352/0109-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 1247,
    "char_count": 25613,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.752,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.258288579065153e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9153002742630941
    },
    "sha256": "ae8e56ffba1d4fe1973fc412cb1f1da59dcdf1630044e3337987694f55731a3e",
    "simhash": "1:21c468c845132e5e",
    "word_count": 4098
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:41:00.069129+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges ELMORE and JACKSON concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "SANDRA ROSE, Employee, Plaintiff v. CITY OF ROCKY MOUNT, Self-Insured Employer, COMPENSATION CLAIMS SOLUTIONS, Administrator, Defendants"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MARTIN, Chief Judge.\nThe City of Rocky Mount (\u201cemployer\u201d) and Compensation Claims Solutions (\u201cadministrator\u201d) (collectively \u201cdefendants\u201d) appeal an opinion and award by the North Carolina Industrial Commission (\u201cCommission\u201d) awarding benefits to Sandra Kay Rose (\u201cplaintiff-employee\u201d), a sworn officer of the City of Rocky Mount\u2019s police department.\nThe underlying events relating to this case took place on 10 November 2003. Evidence in the record tended to show that plaintiff-employee had worked in her present position as a police officer since June 1987, attaining the rank of corporal. At lunch time, following the standard sign-out procedures, she went to run some personal errands. She was not paid for her lunch break, and she drove her personal vehicle. She was accompanied by another officer. During plaintiff-employee\u2019s return trip to the police station, her car was struck from the rear by a vehicle driven by one Aaron Troy Sutton (\u201cSutton\u201d), an intoxicated driver.\nPlaintiff-employee emerged from her vehicle to evaluate the damage. As she began to walk back toward Sutton\u2019s car, it became evident to her that Sutton was planning to flee the scene. Following her training, she \u201ctapped\u201d the hood of the car in order to leave her fingerprints, threw up her hands and yelled for him to stop, while simultaneously trying to get out of the way. Sutton struck plaintiff-employee, who was flung across two lanes of traffic. Sutton then ran across plaintiff-employee\u2019s legs a second time while making his get-away. The first officer on the scene noted that plaintiff-employee appeared \u201calmost lifeless.\u201d\nAn ambulance transported plaintiff-employee to Nash General Hospital. She was treated for multiple bruises and abrasions. However, she suffered no fractures. After her discharge, an orthopedic specialist advised her to continue with the medication, crutches and knee immobilizer she received during her hospitalization. She was also restricted in her work functions.\nPlaintiff-employee returned to work on 6 January 2004. However, her work functions were circumscribed by the restrictions indicated above, which barred her from heavy lifting, climbing, and crawling. This limited her ability to perform crime scene investigations, her primary responsibility. These limitations caused some friction with her supervisor.\nPlaintiff-employee was diagnosed with post traumatic stress, myofacial dysfunctional pain syndrome, bilateral occipital neuralgia, possible knee reflex sympathetic dystrophy, possible cervical herniated disc, depression, short term memory loss, lack of concentration, and adjustment disorder with mixed emotional features.\nAfter her employer determined that her injuries were not related to her job functions, plaintiff-employee filed a Form 33 Request for a Hearing on 16 February 2004. Defendants responded with Form 33R on 5 March 2004. The deputy commissioner heard the case on 18 August 2004 in Nashville. On 26 January 2005, she entered an Opinion and. Award, which inter alia, determined that plaintiff-employee\u2019s injuries arose out of her employment, that she had not reached maximum medical improvement, and directed that she be given additional leave and benefits to recuperate. Defendants appealed to the full Commission.\nOn 29 September 2005, the Commission entered an Opinion and Award affirming the deputy commissioner\u2019s decision. This appeal follows.\nStandard of Review\nOur review of the Commission\u2019s opinion and award is limited to determining whether competent evidence of record supports the findings of fact and whether the findings of fact, in turn, support the conclusions of law. Deese v. Champion Int\u2019l Corp., 352 N.C. 109, 116, 530 S.E.2d 549, 553 (2000). If there is any competent evidence supporting the Commission\u2019s findings of fact, those findings will not be disturbed on appeal despite evidence to the contrary. Jones v. Desk Co., 264 N.C. 401, 402, 141 S.E.2d 632, 633 (1965). However, \u201c[t]he Commission\u2019s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.\u201d Ward v. Long Beach Vol. Rescue Squad, 151 N.C. App. 717, 720, 568 S.E.2d 626, 628 (2002).\nAlthough defendants assigned error to findings of fact 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, and 24, defendants have failed to include in their brief any argument or legal authority in support of its assignments of error regarding findings 21, 23 and 24. Accordingly, these assignments of error are deemed abandoned, N.C. R. App. R 28(b)(6), and these findings of fact are conclusively established on appeal. Johnson v. Herbie\u2019s Place, 157 N.C. App. 168, 180, 579 S.E.2d 110, 118, disc. review denied, 357 N.C. 460, 585 S.E.2d 760 (2003). Defendants also challenge conclusions of law 2 and 3, that the plaintiff-employee was at increased risk of assault as a police officer and that.her injuries arose out of her employment.\nTurning first to conclusion 3, defendants contend that the Commission erred in determining that plaintiff-employee\u2019s injuries arose out of and in the course of her employment. Our Supreme Court has previously held that a determination that an injury arose out of and in the course of employment is a mixed question of law and fact, \u201cand where there is evidence to support the Commissioner\u2019s findings in this regard, [the appellate court is] bound by those findings.\u201d Barham v. Food World, 300 N.C. 329, 331, 266 S.E.2d 676, 678 (1980). This Court reviews the record to determine if the findings of fact and conclusions of law are supported by the record. Cauble v. Soft-Play, Inc., 124 N.C. App. 526, 528, 477 S.E.2d 678, 679 (1996), disc. review denied, 345 N.C. 751, 485 S.E.2d 49 (1997).\nThe pivotal finding in this case was the Commission\u2019s determination that it was plaintiff-employee\u2019s status as a police officer that motivated Sutton\u2019s attack. This finding is critical for two reasons. First, as a matter of law, a mere automobile accident would represent \u201ca risk common to the traveling public and was not due to a hazard peculiar to a police officer.\u201d It would thus not be compensable as a work injury. See Roberts v. Burlington Indus., Inc., 321 N.C. 350, 358, 364 S.E.2d 417, 423 (1988) (holding that an injury is compensable only if \u201cthe nature of the employment was a contributing proximate cause of the injury, and one to which the employee would not have been equally exposed apart from the employment\u201d).\nSecondly, the Industrial Commission found that plaintiff-employee\u2019s injuries were sustained as the result of Sutton\u2019s assault and not as the result of the automobile accident. Significantly, the Commission stated in its findings of fact that the \u201chit-and-run assault was a natural result of a risk reasonably associated with being a police officer\u201d and would not have occurred had plaintiff-employee not been in uniform. A fellow officer who was also involved in the accident, but not in the subsequent assault, does not appear to have been seriously injured.\nAs noted above, the Commission\u2019s \u201cfindings of fact are conclusive on appeal if supported by competent evidence even though there is evidence to support a contrary finding.\u201d Murray v. Associated Insurers, Inc., 341 N.C. 712, 714, 462 S.E.2d 490, 491 (1995). Our Supreme Court has held that \u201ca police officer retains his official law enforcement officer status even while \u2018off duty\u2019 unless it is clear from the nature of his activities that he is acting solely on behalf of a private entity, or is engaged in some frolic or private business of his own.\u201d State v. Gaines, 332 N.C. 461, 472, 421 S.E.2d 569, 575 (1992). Gaines permitted a potential death penalty prosecution to proceed premised on the victim\u2019s status as an off-duty police officer. Id. Other jurisdictions have followed the Gaines reasoning. See, e.g., White v. Kentucky, 178 S.W.3d 470, 481 (Ky. 2005) (shooting of uniformed sheriff at fish fry constituted murder of police official engaged in his duties) (citing Gaines, 332 N.C. at 472, 421 S.E.2d at 574). Logic would dictate that a worker\u2019s compensation claim for a uniformed police officer acting in accordance with her training presents at least an equally strong case as a criminal prosecution potentially entailing the death penalty.\nHere, plaintiff-employee testified it was after she emerged from the vehicle and was mid-center in front of the drunk driver\u2019s car that the latter attempted to flee. Other witnesses at the scene told the police that Sutton \u201caimed\u201d his car at the \u201cpolice officer\u201d and proceeded to drag her. Defendants alleged that there is no evidence to support the Commission\u2019s determination that plaintiff-employee was attacked because she was a police officer, since Sutton, the only individual aware of his intentions at the time of the assault, stated that he did not know that she was a police officer.\nWe find this suggestion disingenuous. At the time of his statement, Sutton was faced with the prospect of being charged with a myriad of serious criminal offenses. Conceding that he had deliberately targeted a law enforcement officer would have exacerbated his already precarious position. Indeed, Sutton denied hitting plaintiff-employee\u2019s truck, denied ramming her, and denied leaving the scene. Against this background, we cannot fault the Commission for declining to take his statements at face value. We note that Sutton did concede he was aware that his victim was uniformed.\nWe have previously noted that mental state is seldom provable by direct evidence. State v. Campbell, 51 N.C. App. 418, 421, 276 S.E.2d 726, 729 (1981). Therefore, the willfulness of an individual\u2019s conduct may be inferred from the circumstances surrounding the events. See, e.g., State v. Agnew, 294 N.C. 382, 393, 241 S.E.2d 684, 691 (1978). Our Supreme Court has held that:\nKnowledge is a mental state that may be proved by offering circumstantial evidence to prove a contemporaneous state of mind. ... It may be proved by the conduct and statements of the defendant, by statements made to him by others, by evidence of reputation which it may be inferred had come to his attention, and by other circumstantial evidence from which an inference of knowledge might reasonably be drawn.\nState v. Bogle, 324 N.C. 190, 195, 376 S.E.2d 745, 748 (1989) (citation omitted). Examining the circumstantial evidence around the attack on plaintiff-employee, including her testimony and that of other witnesses present at the scene, we hold there is sufficient evidence to support the Commission\u2019s findings that the assault was directed against the plaintiff-employee because of her status as a police officer, and not because of the traffic accident.\nIt is this distinction that renders the defendant\u2019s chief case inap-posite to the present one. Dodson v. Dubose Steel, Inc., 159 N.C. App. 1, 12, 582 S.E.2d 389, 395 (2003) (Steelman, J., dissenting), rev\u2019d per curiam, 358 N.C. 129, 591 S.E.2d 548 (2004) (for reasons stated in the dissent), concerned a driver killed in a road rage altercation. The dissenting opinion adopted by the Supreme Court specifically noted that all drivers were at equal risk of confrontations arising from road rage, whether they were driving for employment or personal reasons. Id. at 15, 582 S.E.2d at 398. The determinative and distinguishing fact was that the decedent in Dodson was not attacked because he was a truck driver. By contrast, the Commission has specifically found that plaintiff-employee in this case was targeted for assault because of her status as a police officer.\nWe also note, in the alternative, that the Commission found as a matter of fact that the plaintiff-employee was acting in her law enforcement capacity in her response to Sutton. The Commission alluded in particular to the undisputed fact that plaintiff-employee followed police procedure and \u201ctapped\u201d the hood of the assailant\u2019s car with her hands to provide prints for subsequent investigation. Plaintiff-employee also testified that, in leaving the prints, she was following her training and established police procedure.\nIn this context, defendants have challenged some particular factual findings made by the Commission. For instance, the Commission relied on the fact that plaintiff-employee was on call during the incident as an underlying factor to support its determination that her injuries arose out of and in the course of her employment. Defendants challenge this finding, citing Childs v. Johnson, 155 N.C. App. 381, 389, 573 S.E.2d 662, 667 (2002) for the proposition that being on call is insufficient to draw a government employee into the scope of employment while on a personal errand. The comparison is misplaced.\nIn the first place, the Commission unequivocally rejected plaintiff-employee\u2019s assertion that being on-call in and of itself placed her on duty:\n15. . . . Plaintiff has argued that she was on-call during her shift, that she had her radio on and with her throughout the time she was gone in case she was called into service . . . 16. However, plaintiff was not at her workstation and was not engaged in any policy activity when her vehicle was rear-ended. . . . She was not paid for the lunch period, which was not considered to be a \u201cbreak\u201d, a shorter rest period taken on site; nor was she paid mileage for use of her vehicle. Although she had her police radio on while she was gone, she had not been called into service during her lunch period but spent the time running personal errands.\nSecondly, Childs dealt with the denial of governmental immunity to a government official involved in an automobile accident whose job required him to be on call twenty-four hours a day. Id. It was not a Workers\u2019 Compensation Act case. In Childs, we held that the mere fact that the official was on-call while running personal errands did not suffice to shield his conduct in a subsequent automobile accident via the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Its holding is tangential at best to the case at bar.\nMore importantly, the Commission did not rest its determination that the attack occurred in the scope of employment exclusively on the fact that plaintiff-employee was on call. The evidence was cumulative, and the Commission noted inter alia, that plaintiff-employee was still on her work shift, was in uniform, and that the assault resulted from her identification as a police officer. Indeed, in Gaines, supra, our Supreme Court held that the decedent, an off-duty but uniformed policeman on security duty murdered by the defendant, had been \u201cengaged in the performance of his official duties.\u201d Gaines, 332 N.C. at 477, 421 S.E.2d at 577; see State v. Lightner, 108 N.C. App. 349, 351-52, 423 S.E.2d 827, 829 (1992) (upholding a conviction on a count of assault on a law enforcement officer, where the defendant assaulted off-duty but uniformed police officers at restaurant during the course of the altercation).\nWe stress that this Court does not function as an appellate fact finder; it is the Commission that performs the \u201cultimate fact-finding\u201d function under our Worker\u2019s Compensation Act. Adams v. AVX Corp., 349 N.C. 676, 680-81, 509 S.E.2d 411, 413 (1998). If the Commission\u2019s findings are supported by competent evidence, they are conclusive on appeal, Hedrick v. PPG Indus., 126 N.C. App. 354, 357, 484 S.E.2d 853, 856, disc. review denied, 346 N.C. 546, 488 S.E.2d 801-02 (1997), and this Court \u201cmay set aside a finding of fact only if it lacks evidentiary support.\u201d Holley v. ACTS, Inc., 357 N.C. 228, 231, 581 S.E.2d 750, 752 (2003). In particular, this Court may not weigh the evidence or evaluate the credibility of witnesses, as \u201cthe Commission is the sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony.\u201d Adams, 349 N.C. at 680, 509 S.E.2d at 413. A finding of fact is conclusive on appeal if supported by competent evidence, even where there is evidence to contradict the finding. Id. at 681, 509 S.E.2d at 414.\nWe have noted several findings of fact above that are undisputed and are cumulatively sufficient to support the Commission\u2019s decision on alternative grounds. \u201c[S]o long as there is some \u2018evidence of substance which directly or by reasonable inference tends to support the findings, this Court is bound by such evidence, even though there is evidence that would have supported a finding to the contrary.\u2019 \u201d Shah v. Howard Johnson, 140 N.C. App. 58, 61-62, 535 S.E.2d 577, 580 (2000) (quoting Porterfield v. RPC Corp., 47 N.C. App. 140, 144, 266 S.E.2d 760, 762 (1980)), disc. review denied, 353 N.C. 381, 547 S.E.2d 17 (2001). We may not substitute our own judgment for that of the Commission, even though the evidence \u201cmight rationally justify reaching a different conclusion.\u201d Floyd v. N.C. Dep\u2019t of Commerce, 99 N.C. App. 125, 129, 392 S.E.2d 660, 662 (1990) (citation omitted), disc. review denied, 327 N.C. 482, 397 S.E.2d 217, disc. review dismissed, 327 N.C. 633, 399 S.E.2d 120 (1990).\nNext, the defendants contend the full Commission erred in failing to acknowledge or address all of the issues that were before it, especially the issue of plaintiff-employee\u2019s authority to engage in traffic stops. The Commission is not required to make a specific finding as to each potential point presented by the evidence. Guest v. Iron & Metal Co., 241 N.C. 448, 451, 85 S.E.2d 596, 599 (1955); Morgan v. Furniture Industries, Inc., 2 N.C. App. 126, 128, 162 S.E.2d 619, 620 (1968). The issue of authority is not material in this case, and the failure to specifically address it is not prejudicial error. Thomason v. Cab Co., 235 N.C. 602, 605, 70 S.E.2d 706, 708-09 (1952). We find this argument to be without merit.\nThe defendant\u2019s last argument contends that the Commission erred in its conclusion of law 2 in relying on a treatise to support its conclusion of law that police officials and others who keep the peace are subject to a special risk of assault. See 1 Larson\u2019s Worker\u2019s Compensation Law \u00a7 8.01 (2000). We note in passing that our Supreme Court has previously cited to non-binding authorities to clarify issues. See, e.g., State v. Ali, 329 N.C. 394, 403, 407 S.E.2d 183, 189 (1991).\nHere, the defendants contend that the Commission has erroneously relied on Larsen\u2019s treatise to effectively adopt the \u201cpositional risk\u201d rule, rather than the \u201cincreased risk rule\u201d which is the law of this state. See Ramsey v. Southern Indus. Constructors Inc., 178 N.C. App. 25, 36, 630 S.E.2d 681, 689 (2006) (\u201c[O]ur courts have applied an \u2018increased risk\u2019 analysis and have rejected the \u2018positional risk\u2019 doctrine ....\u201d). We agree that the \u201cincreased risk\u201d test and not the \u201cpositional risk\u201d rule is the law of the State, but disagree with the defendant\u2019s contention that the Commission erroneously applied the latter.\nUnder the \u201cincreased risk\u201d doctrine the injury arises out of the employment if the nature of the employment is \u201ca contributing proximate cause of the injury, and one to which the employee would not have been equally exposed apart from the employment.\u201d Roberts, 321 N.C. at 358, 364 S.E.2d at 423. By contrast, the \u201cpositional risk\u201d rule holds that \u201c \u2018[a]n injury arises out of the employment if it would not have occurred but for the fact that the conditions and obligations of employment placed claimant in the position where he was injured.\u2019 \u201d Id. (quoting 1 A. Larson, The Law of Workmen\u2019s Compensation \u00a7 6.50 (1984)). The Commission specifically found that compensable injury was not the automobile accident \u2014 \u201ca risk common to the traveling public\u201d \u2014 which would flow from the \u201cpositional risk\u201d argument. Instead, the Commission clearly stated that Sutton\u2019s assault would not have occurred \u201cbut for the fact that she [plaintiff-employee] was in uniform.\u201d (emphasis added). This finding conforms to the contours of the \u201cincreased risk\u201d doctrine as demarcated in Roberts above.\nContrary to the defendants\u2019 assertions, the Commission and this Court have been cognizant of the fact that police officers are uniquely vulnerable to certain job related dangers. Injuries stemming from those dangers qualify for Workers\u2019 Compensation. See Pulley v. City of Durham, 121 N.C. App. 688, 694, 468 S.E.2d 506, 510 (1996) (holding that clinical depression leading to temporary total disability was a compensable work related injury for police officer because of nature of work); Baker v. City of Sanford, 120 N.C. App. 783, 788, 463 S.E.2d 559, 563 (1995) (holding that depression is an occupational disease for law enforcement officials); Harvey v. Raleigh Police Dep\u2019t, 85 N.C. App. 541, 544, 355 S.E.2d 147, 150 (1987), disc. review denied, 320 N.C. 631, 360 S.E.2d 86 (1987) (reversing the Commission\u2019s finding that job related stress was not cause of officer\u2019s suicide and remanding for reconsideration); Winfrey v. City of Durham Police Dep\u2019t, I.C. NO. 814869, 2001 NC Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 2589 (2001) (finding that \u201cplaintiff\u2019s employment as a police officer for defendant was a significant causal factor in plaintiff\u2019s development. of major depression and plaintiff\u2019s job with defendant placed him at an increased risk for developing major depression\u201d).\nFinally, we address the plaintiff-employee\u2019s request that under our discretion we award her the expenses incurred in connection with litigating this appeal as permitted by statute. See N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 97-88 (2003). Plaintiff-employee was injured on 10 November 2003. Deputy Commissioner Morgan\u2019s order granted her compensation for eight weeks of recuperative leave. Though the underlying facts are not in dispute, this case has been litigated at three levels over the same number of years. Under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 97-88, the Commission or a reviewing court may award costs, including attorney\u2019s fees, to an injured employee \u201c \u2018if (1) the insurer has appealed a decision to the full Commission or to any court, and (2) on appeal, the Commission or court has ordered the insurer to make, or continue making, payments of benefits to the employee.\u2019 \u201d Brown v. Public Works Comm\u2019n, 122 N.C. App. 473, 477, 470 S.E.2d 352, 354 (1996) (quoting Estes v. N.C. State Univ., 117 N.C. App. 126, 128, 449 S.E.2d 762, 764 (1994)).\nIn the case at bar, the defendants have appealed the Deputy Commissioner\u2019s decision that temporary total disability compensation be paid to plaintiff-employee. On appeal, the Commission unanimously affirmed the award of temporary total disability compensation. The defendants have now appealed to this Court, and we also affirm the original decision of the trial court. The statutory requirements are therefore satisfied, and we grant plaintiff-employee\u2019s request for expenses incurred in this appeal in our discretion. See Brooks v. Capstar Corp., 168 N.C. App. 23, 30-31, 606 S.E.2d 696, 701 (2005); Flores v. Stacy Penny Masonry Co., 134 N.C. App. 452, 459, 518 S.E.2d 200, 205 (1999). The Commission must determine the portion of the attorney\u2019s fees stemming from the appeal. Hodges v. Equity Grp., 164 N.C. App. 339, 347 596 S.E.2d 31, 37 (2004). Accordingly, this matter is remanded to the Commission with instruction that the Commission determine the amount due plaintiff-employee for the costs incurred as a result of the appeal to this Court, including reasonable attorney\u2019s fees.\nAffirmed in part, remanded in part.\nJudges ELMORE and JACKSON concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MARTIN, Chief Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Thomas and Farris, P.A., by Albert S. Thomas, Jr., and Rose Rand Attorneys, P.A., by Paul N. Blake, III, for plaintiff - appellee.",
      "Brooks, Stevens & Pope, P.A., by Kathlyn C. Hobbs and Matthew \u25a0 P. Blake, for defendants-appellants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "SANDRA ROSE, Employee, Plaintiff v. CITY OF ROCKY MOUNT, Self-Insured Employer, COMPENSATION CLAIMS SOLUTIONS, Administrator, Defendants\nNo. COA05-1645\n(Filed 5 December 2006)\n1. Appeal and Error\u2014 assignments of error \u2014 not supported by authority \u2014 abandoned\nAssignments of error not supported by argument or legal authority in a workers\u2019 compensation case were deemed abandoned, and the findings challenged thereby were conclusively established on appeal.\n2. Workers\u2019 Compensation\u2014 assault on police office \u2014 after traffic accident \u2014 arising from employment\nThere was sufficient evidence in a workers\u2019 compensation case to support Industrial Commission findings that an assault was directed at plaintiff because she was a police officer, and not because of a traffic accident in which she had been involved on her lunch break. There are also undisputed findings that are cumulatively sufficient to support the Commission\u2019s decision on alternate grounds.\n3. Workers\u2019 Compensation\u2014 police officer injured in traffic accident on lunch hour \u2014 authority to make traffic stops\u2014 not material\nThe issue of the authority of a police officer injured in a traffic accident on her lunch hour to make traffic stops was not material in her workers\u2019 compensation case, and the Industrial Commission did not err by not addressing it.\n4. Workers\u2019 Compensation\u2014 use of treatise \u2014 increased risk rule \u2014 injured police officer\nThe use of a treatise in a workers\u2019 compensation case to support the conclusion that police officials are subject to a special risk of assault was not error. The Industrial Commission\u2019s finding conforms to the contours of the increased risk rule; the treatise was not used to adopt the \u201cpositional risk\u201d rule.\n5. Workers\u2019 Compensation\u2014 expenses of appeal \u2014 granted\nThe Court of Appeals granted a request for expenses by a workers\u2019 compensation plaintiff where the statutory requirements were satisfied. However, the matter was remanded for a determination of the portion of attorney fees stemming from the appeal to the Court of Appeals. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 97-88.\nAppeal by employer from opinion and award of the North Carolina Industrial Commission entered 29 September 2005. Heard in the Court of Appeals 19 October 2006.\nThomas and Farris, P.A., by Albert S. Thomas, Jr., and Rose Rand Attorneys, P.A., by Paul N. Blake, III, for plaintiff - appellee.\nBrooks, Stevens & Pope, P.A., by Kathlyn C. Hobbs and Matthew \u25a0 P. Blake, for defendants-appellants."
  },
  "file_name": "0392-01",
  "first_page_order": 422,
  "last_page_order": 433
}