{ "id": 3821831, "name": "LAZONA GALE SPEARS, Employee, Plaintiff v. BETSY JOHNSON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, Employer, N.C. GUARANTY ASSOCIATION, Successor to RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY, Carrier, Defendants", "name_abbreviation": "Spears v. Betsy Johnson Memorial Hospital", "decision_date": "2011-04-05", "docket_number": "No. COA10-580", "first_page": "716", "last_page": "724", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "210 N.C. App. 716" } ], "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": "669 S.E.2d 741", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12642308, 12642309, 12642310 ], "year": 2008, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/669/0741-01", "/se2d/669/0741-02", "/se2d/669/0741-03" ] }, { "cite": "657 S.E.2d 55", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12640548 ], "year": 2008, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "62" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/657/0055-01" ] }, { "cite": "459 U.S. 1037", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6478592, 6478464, 6479076, 6478662, 6478889, 6478731, 6478802, 6478996, 6479162, 6478524 ], "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/459/1037-03", "/us/459/1037-01", "/us/459/1037-09", "/us/459/1037-04", "/us/459/1037-07", "/us/459/1037-05", "/us/459/1037-06", "/us/459/1037-08", "/us/459/1037-10", "/us/459/1037-02" ] }, { "cite": "655 S.E.2d 840", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12640264, 12640265, 12640263 ], "year": 2007, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/655/0840-02", "/se2d/655/0840-03", "/se2d/655/0840-01" ] }, { "cite": "362 N.C. 88", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 12640263, 12640328, 12640329, 12640265, 12640268 ], "year": 2007, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/655/0840-01", "/se2d/656/0278-01", "/se2d/656/0279-01", "/se2d/655/0840-03", "/se2d/655/0841-03" ] }, { "cite": "647 S.E.2d 667", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12638973 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "670" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/647/0667-01" ] }, { "cite": "627 S.E.2d 684", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12635433, 12635434, 12635435, 12635436, 12635437, 12635438, 12635439, 12635440, 12635441, 12635442, 12635443, 12635444, 12635445, 12635446 ], "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "unpublished" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/627/0684-06", "/se2d/627/0684-01", "/se2d/627/0684-02", "/se2d/627/0684-03", "/se2d/627/0684-04", "/se2d/627/0684-05", "/se2d/627/0684-07", "/se2d/627/0684-08", "/se2d/627/0684-09", "/se2d/627/0684-10", "/se2d/627/0684-11", "/se2d/627/0684-12", "/se2d/627/0684-13", "/se2d/627/0684-14" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 97-47", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "weight": 3, "year": 2009, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "362 N.C. 679", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "year": 2008, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "188 N.C. App. 671", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 4156213 ], "year": 2008, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "679" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/188/0671-01" ] }, { "cite": "515 S.E.2d 700", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1998, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "349 N.C. 228", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 571585, 571720, 571729, 571609, 571706 ], "year": 1998, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/349/0228-05", "/nc/349/0228-03", "/nc/349/0228-04", "/nc/349/0228-02", "/nc/349/0228-01" ] }, { "cite": "502 S.E.2d 58", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "61" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "130 N.C. App. 135", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11465738 ], "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "138" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/130/0135-01" ] }, { "cite": "74 L. Ed. 2d 604", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "675 F.2d 525", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 1175704 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "529" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/675/0525-01" ] }, { "cite": "892 F.2d 1115", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 10529029 ], "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1118" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/892/1115-01" ] }, { "cite": "324 S.E.2d 829", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "833" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "312 N.C. 770", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4755941 ], "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "777" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/312/0770-01" ] }, { "cite": "185 N.C. App. 135", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8208786 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "138" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/185/0135-01" ] }, { "cite": "337 S.E.2d 477", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "483" }, { "page": "478" }, { "page": "482" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "315 N.C. 127", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4716956 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "137" }, { "page": "135" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/315/0127-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 97-85", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "weight": 3, "year": 2009, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 97-84", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "weight": 3, "year": 2009, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "589 S.E.2d 179", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "180" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "161 N.C. App. 558", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8959285 ], "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "559" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/161/0558-01" ] }, { "cite": "464 S.E.2d 689", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "694", "parenthetical": "\"Notably, plaintiff poses this collateral attack for the first time on appeal; plaintiff failed to raise any objection to the panel's composition at the Full Commission level.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "121 N.C. App. 117", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11915752 ], "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "126", "parenthetical": "\"Notably, plaintiff poses this collateral attack for the first time on appeal; plaintiff failed to raise any objection to the panel's composition at the Full Commission level.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/121/0117-01" ] }, { "cite": "2006 WL 851795", "category": "reporters:specialty_west", "reporter": "WL", "weight": 3, "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "unpublished" }, { "page": "*2-4" }, { "page": "*4" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "177 N.C. App. 148", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "unpublished" } ], "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 889, "char_count": 21332, "ocr_confidence": 0.731, "pagerank": { "raw": 8.138363859351185e-08, "percentile": 0.4717172700030002 }, "sha256": "0001caeb09a6e8902beafaba18aa4f53432f46b84c3c16d74a4c5467a5d6a75f", "simhash": "1:a8110f83287b0a56", "word_count": 3306 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:51:45.819483+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges CALABRIA and ELMORE concur." ], "parties": [ "LAZONA GALE SPEARS, Employee, Plaintiff v. BETSY JOHNSON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, Employer, N.C. GUARANTY ASSOCIATION, Successor to RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY, Carrier, Defendants" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "HUNTER, Robert C., Judge.\nIn plaintiff Lazona Gale Spears\u2019 prior appeal, this Court affirmed the Industrial Commission\u2019s opinion and award in which it concluded that plaintiff had failed to establish that all of the medical conditions that she claimed were causally related to her compensable injury were, in fact, related to the injury. See Spears v. Betsy Johnson Mem\u2019l Hosp., 177 N.C. App. 148, 627 S.E.2d 684, 2006 N.C. App. LEXIS 2600, 2006 WL 851795 (2006) (unpublished). Plaintiff subsequently filed with the Commission (1) a motion to set aside its prior decision, alleging that defendant-employer Betsy Johnson Memorial Hospital and defendant-carrier N.C. Guaranty Association committed fraud on the Commission in order to obtain a favorable outcome in the prior matter, and (2) a motion to modify the prior award based on a change of condition. After careful review, we affirm the Commission\u2019s decision denying her motion to set aside its prior decision and concluding that plaintiff failed to establish a change of condition warranting modification of her award.\nFactual and Procedural History\nThe underlying facts regarding plaintiff\u2019s injury and treatment are set out in greater detail in this Court\u2019s prior opinion in this case. See id. at *5-9, 2006 WL 851795 at *2-4. Pertinent to this appeal, on 4 January 2000, plaintiff, who was a registered nurse at the time, was working as the Health and Infection Control Coordinator at the Hospital. On that date, plaintiff was involved in a physical altercation with a coworker and sustained an admittedly compensable injury when the coworker forcibly pushed her as she was standing up from her chair. On 19 February 2001, plaintiff was terminated for poor work performance unrelated to her compensable injury.\nPlaintiff\u2019s claim was originally heard by Deputy Commissioner Philip A. Baddour, III on 19 August 2002, and at the time of the hearing, plaintiff had treated with her family physician, Dr. Linda Robinson, neurologist Dr. Nailesh Dave, neurologist Dr. Pamela Whitney, and Dr. Robert C. Jacobson. The following medical conditions were discussed in the medical records and testimony in the evidentiary record before Deputy Commissioner Baddour: hypertension, nerve palsy, Bell\u2019s palsy, peripheral neuropathy, reflex sympathetic dystrophy (\u201cRSD\u201d), facial nerve palsy/neuropathy, chronic pain, myofascial pain syndrome, depression, facial weakness, eyelid drooping (ptosis), chronic myalgia/myositis, cervical brachial syndrome, and problems with concentration, imbalance, speech, swallowing, and stress. Deputy Commissioner Baddour issued his opinion and award on 29 August 2003, finding that plaintiff\u2019s neck pain and headaches, which were diagnosed as occipital neuralgia, were causally related to her 4 January 2000 injury, but that plaintiff\u2019s \u201cother medical conditions\u201d were not related to the injury. Deputy Commissioner Baddour concluded that (1) plaintiff was entitled to temporary total disability compensation for work that she missed prior to her termination; (2) plaintiff failed to establish that she was totally disabled after her termination; and (3) defendants were responsible for paying for medical treatment for plaintiff\u2019s \u201cheadache and neck pain conditions.\u201d\nPlaintiff appealed to the Full Commission, which, in an opinion and awarded entered 14 February 2005, affirmed with minor modifications Deputy Commissioner Baddour\u2019s award. While the Commission quoted most of Deputy Commissioner Baddour\u2019s findings of fact \u201cverbatim,\u201d it made the additional finding that plaintiff, despite her compensable headaches and neck pain, had wage-earning capacity as she was capable of sedentary work. Plaintiff appealed the Commission\u2019s 14 February 2005 decision to this Court. In an unpublished opinion filed 4 April 2006, this Court affirmed the Commission\u2019s decision, noting that plaintiff had failed to assign error to any of the Commission\u2019s findings of fact and that these uncontested findings were sufficient to support the Commission\u2019s conclusions of law. Id. at *11, 2006 WL 851795 at *4. That decision was not appealed to the Supreme Court.\nOn 9 February 2007, plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a Form 33, requesting (1) a hearing on issues concerning her 4 January 2000 injury; (2) setting aside the Full Commission\u2019s 2005 decision; and (3) entering default judgment against defendants. Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiff\u2019s Form 33, and after conducting a hearing on 23 August 2007, Deputy Commissioner Ronnie E. Rowell entered an opinion and award on 22 January 2008, in which he determined that plaintiff\u2019s Fbrm 33 should be treated as a motion for modification of her prior award based on a change of condition and that plaintiff\u2019s claim was not time-barred. Accordingly, Deputy Commissioner Rowell denied defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss. Deputy Commissioner Rowell additionally found that defendants, after the expiration of the period for appealing from this Court\u2019s prior decision, had failed to pay plaintiff the temporary total disability compensation ordered by the Full Commission. Consequently, Deputy Commissioner Rowell ordered defendants to make a lump sum payment to plaintiff plus a 10% late payment penalty. He also ordered defendants to pay for all of plaintiff\u2019s medical expenses incurred as a result of her compensable 4 January 2000 injury.\nAfter a hearing on 23 April 2008, Deputy Commissioner Robert J. Harris entered an opinion and award on 21 April 2009, in which he denied plaintiff\u2019s motion to set aside the Commission\u2019s 2005 decision, her motion for default judgment, and her claim for change in condition. After Deputy Commissioner Harris denied plaintiff\u2019s motion for reconsideration, plaintiff appealed to the Full Commission. In an opinion and award entered 21 December 2009, the Commission affirmed, with minor modifications, Deputy Commissioner Harris\u2019 decision. Plaintiff subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by order entered 30 March 2010. Plaintiff timely appealed to this Court.\nI\nPlaintiff first argues that the Workers\u2019 Compensation Act \u201cdoes not allow Commissioners who heard the case before to hear it again.\u201d Because Commissioners Laura K. Mavretic and Christopher Scott participated in the 14 February 2005 decision, plaintiff contends that they were \u201cnot qualified to sit on the Full Commission in this case.\u201d As a threshold matter, we note that plaintiff failed to preserve this contention for appellate review by not raising the issue before the Industrial Commission. See Poe v. Raleigh/Durham Airport Authority, 121 N.C. App. 117, 126, 464 S.E.2d 689, 694 (1995) (\u201cNotably, plaintiff poses this collateral attack for the first time on appeal; plaintiff failed to raise any objection to the panel\u2019s composition at the Full Commission level.\u201d).\nIn any event, issues involving statutory interpretation \u201care questions of law, which are reviewed de novo by an appellate court.\u201d In re Proposed Assessments v. Jefferson-Pilot Life Ins. Co., 161 N.C. App. 558, 559, 589 S.E.2d 179, 180 (2003). Plaintiff misconstrues the provisions of the Workers\u2019 Compensation Act setting out the procedures for the initial adjudication of a workers\u2019 compensation claim and the procedures regarding the Full Commission\u2019s review of that decision. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 97-84 (2009), titled \u201cDetermination of disputes by Commission or deputy,\u201d provides:\nThe Commission or any of its members shall hear the parties at issue and their representatives and witnesses, and shall determine the dispute in a summary manner. The award, together with a statement of the findings of fact, rulings of law, and other matters pertinent to the questions at issue shall be filed with the record of the proceedings, within 180 days of the close of the hearing record unless time is extended for good cause by the Commission, and a copy of the award shall immediately be sent to the parties in dispute. The parties may be heard by a deputy, in which event the hearing shall be conducted in the same way and manner prescribed for hearings which are conducted by a member of the Industrial Commission, and said deputy shall proceed to a complete determination of the matters in dispute, file his written opinion within 180 days of the close of the hearing record unless time is extended for good cause by the Commission, and the deputy shall cause to be issued an award pursuant to such determination.\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 97-85 (2009), in turn, addresses the Full Commission\u2019s \u201c[r]eview\u201d of the initial award:\nIf application is made to the Commission within 15 days from the date when notice of the award shall have been given, the full Commission shall review the award, and, if good ground be shown therefor, reconsider the evidence, receive further evidence, rehear the parties or their representatives, and, if proper, amend the award: Provided, however, when application is made for review of an award, and such an award has been heard and determined by a commissioner of the North Carolina Industrial Commission, the commissioner who heard and determined the dispute in the first instance, as specified by G.S. 97-84, shall be disqualified from sitting with the full Commission on the review of such award, and the chairman of the Industrial Commission shall designate a deputy commissioner to take such commissioner\u2019s place in the review of the particular award. The deputy commissioner so designated, along with the two other commissioners, shall compose the full Commission upon review....\n(Emphasis added.) Read in pari materia, the two provisions establish that when, pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 97-84, a member of the Full Commission \u201chear[s] and determine[s] the dispute in the first instance,\u201d that commissioner is disqualified from participating in the Full Commission\u2019s review of the initial decision. Thus, contrary to plaintiff\u2019s contention, N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 97-85 merely provides that the initial fact-finder does not participate in the review of those factual determinations. As neither Commissioner Mavretic nor Commissioner Scott adjudicated plaintiff\u2019s claim \u201cin the first instance\u201d under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 97-84, they are not disqualified pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 97-85 from sitting on the Full Commission\u2019s review of the deputy commissioner\u2019s decision. Plaintiff\u2019s argument is overruled.\nII\nPlaintiff next claims that defendants committed fraud on the Commission in order to obtain a favorable outcome with respect to the Commission\u2019s 14 February 2005 opinion and award. Thus, plaintiff contends, the Commission should have granted her motion to set aside that decision.\nAlthough both plaintiff and defendants base their arguments on the assumption that Rule 60(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes plaintiff\u2019s motion to set aside the Commission\u2019s decision, \u201c[t]he Rules of Civil Procedure are not strictly applicable to proceedings under the Workers\u2019 Compensation Act....\u201d Hogan v. Cone Mills Corp., 315 N.C. 127, 137, 337 S.E.2d 477, 483 (1985). The Industrial Commission nevertheless has the \u201cinherent power, analogous to that conferred on courts by Rule 60(b)(6), in the exercise of supervision over its own judgments to set aside a former judgment when the paramount interest in achieving a just and proper determination of a claim requires it[.]\u201d Id. at 129, 337 S.E.2d at 478. The denial of a motion to set aside a prior judgment procured by \u201cfraud on the court\u201d is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Purcell Int\u2019l Textile Grp., Inc. v. Algemene AFW N.V., 185 N.C. App. 135, 138, 647 S.E.2d 667, 670 (reviewing denial of Rule 60(b)(6) motion for relief from judgment allegedly procured by \u201cfraud on the court\u201d for abuse of discretion), disc. review denied, 362 N.C. 88, 655 S.E.2d 840 (2007). The Commission may be reversed for abuse of discretion only upon a showing that its ruling is \u201cmanifestly unsupported by reason\u201d or \u201cso arbitrary that it could not have been the result of a reasoned decision.\u201d White v. White, 312 N.C. 770, 777, 324 S.E.2d 829, 833 (1985).\nAs the First Circuit has explained, a \u201cfraud on the court\u201d or tribunal\noccurs where it can be demonstrated, clearly and convincingly, that a party has sentiently set in motion some unconscionable scheme calculated to interfere with the judicial system\u2019s ability impartially to adjudicate a matter by improperly influencing the trier or unfairly hampering the presentation of the opposing party\u2019s claim or defense.\nAoude v. Mobil Oil Corp., 892 F.2d 1115, 1118 (1st Cir. 1989).\nHere, plaintiff premises her motion for relief on allegations that defendants \u201ctamper[ed] \u201d with or removed evidence from the record developed before Deputy Commissioner Baddour, made \u201cintentional misrepresentations\u201d of fact during the proceedings, and \u201ccollu[ded]\u201d with Deputy Commissioner Baddour to \u201cwrite a false story.\u201d Plaintiff fails to explain, however, why she did not raise these extremely serious concerns on appeal to the Full Commission during the 2002-05 proceedings or on appeal to this Court in 2006. See M.W. Zack Metal Co. v. International Nav. Corp. of Monrovia, 675 F.2d 525, 529 (2d Cir.) (holding plaintiff could not seek relief from judgments based on \u201cfraud allegedly perpetrated on . . . various courts\u201d where plaintiff \u201chad an opportunity to raise these fraud claims in the courts in which they occurred\u201d), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1037, 74 L. Ed. 2d 604 (1982). As plaintiff had the opportunity in the prior proceedings to present her concerns, and failed to do so, the Commission did not abuse its discretion in denying her motion to set aside its prior decision.\nIll\nPlaintiff next contends that the Commission erred in concluding that because she failed to appeal the Commission\u2019s determination in its 2005 opinion and award that certain medical conditions were not related to the 4 January 2000 accident, that decision became final, and the doctrine of res judicata precludes plaintiff from now claiming that those conditions are related to the incident. Specifically, the Commission concluded that \u201c[p]laintiff is barred by the doctrine of res judicata from now claiming that the following conditions are compensable: myofascial pain syndrome, chronic myalgia/myositis, cervical brachial syndrome, facial pain/weakness, eyelid drooping (ptosis), nerve palsies, Bell\u2019s palsy, peripheral neuropathy, depression, concentration issues and RSD in her face and right upper extremity.\u201d We note that plaintiff fails to cite any authority supportive of her contention that the Commission \u201cmisappl[ied]\u201d the doctrine of res judicata, but, rather, simply points to evidence that she claims shows that the various medical conditions are, in fact, related to the 4 January 2000 accident.\nIt is well-established that \u201c[t]he doctrine of res judicata precludes relitigation of final orders of the Full Commission and orders of a deputy commissioner which have not been appealed to the Full Commission.\u201d Bryant v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 130 N.C. App. 135, 138, 502 S.E.2d 58, 61, disc. review denied, 349 N.C. 228, 515 S.E.2d 700 (1998). The essential elements of res judicata are: (1) a final judgment on the merits in a prior suit; (2) an identity- of the cause of action in the prior suit and the current suit; and (3) an identity of parties or their privies in both suits. Hogan, 315 N.C. at 135, 337 S.E.2d at 482. Whether the doctrine of res judicata operates to bar a cause of action is a question of law reviewed de novo on appeal. Bluebird Corp. v. Aubin, 188 N.C. App. 671, 679, 657 S.E.2d 55, 62, disc. review denied, 362 N.C. 679, 669 S.E.2d 741 (2008).\nHere, it is undisputed that both workers\u2019 compensation actions involve the same parties and that the Commission\u2019s 2005 decision became a final award when plaintiff failed to appeal this Court\u2019s decision affirming the Commission\u2019s opinion and award. With respect to the second element, the parties\u2019 pre-trial agreement provided that \u201cthe issues for determination at the hearing\u201d before Deputy Commissioner Baddour 'included \u201cwhether plaintiff\u2019s various medical conditions are causally related to [the 4 January 2000] accident[.]\u201d Deputy Commissioner Baddour and, on review, the Full Commission determined that, while plaintiff had established that her \u201cheadaches, diagnosed as occipital neuralgia, and neck pain are causally related to her accident at work on January 4, 2000[,]\u201d she had \u201cfailed to establish . . . that her other medical conditions are causally related to her accident at work on January 4, 2000.\u201d\nThe evidentiary record before Deputy Commissioner Baddour and the Commission shows that the \u201cother medical conditions\u201d addressed in medical records and testimony were: hypertension, nerve palsy, Bell\u2019s palsy, peripheral neuropathy, RSD, facial nerve palsy/neuropathy, chronic pain, myofascial pain syndrome, depression, facial weakness, eyelid drooping (ptosis), chronic myalgia/myositis, cervical brachial syndrome, and problems with concentration, imbalance, speech, swallowing, and stress. As these conditions were previously ruled to be unrelated to plaintiff\u2019s accident, and plaintiff did not appeal that determination, it became final and now bars plaintiff from claiming that they are related to the 4 January 2000 accident.\nIV\nPlaintiff also argues that the Commission erroneously concluded that she had not met her burden of \u201cshow[ing] that she has suffered a change of condition\u201d entitling her to modification of her prior award. Our review of plaintiffs contention is frustrated by her failure to adequately brief the issue. Significantly, plaintiff fails to cite to, much less discuss, N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 97-47 (2009), the statute providing the Industrial Commission with the authority to review and modify prior awards \u201con the grounds of a change in condition.\u201d Nor does plaintiff set out, through the citation of relevant caselaw, the general principles of law regarding what constitutes a \u201cchange in condition\u201d warranting modification under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 97-47 and how such a change in condition may be established. Moreover, despite abundant caselaw on the issue, plaintiff does not point to a single appellate decision finding a change of condition based on evidence similar to the evidence produced in this case. In short, plaintiff simply points to the evidence that she contends supports her claim, without any meaningful application of the law to the evidence. In any event, we conclude that the Commission\u2019s conclusion that plaintiff did not satisfy her burden of proving a change of condition under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 97-47 is supported by the Commission\u2019s findings and the evidence upon which they are based. The Commission, therefore, properly denied plaintiff\u2019s claim for modification of her prior award.\nV\nIn her brief, plaintiff presents additional arguments that are, frankly, difficult for this Court to follow. To the extent that we understand plaintiff\u2019s arguments, we have reviewed them and find them to be without merit. The Commission\u2019s opinion and award is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nJudges CALABRIA and ELMORE concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "HUNTER, Robert C., Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Lazona Gale Spears, pro se, plaintiff-appellant.", "Young Moore and Henderson P.A., by Jeffrey T. Linder and Julia E. Dixon, for defendants-appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "LAZONA GALE SPEARS, Employee, Plaintiff v. BETSY JOHNSON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, Employer, N.C. GUARANTY ASSOCIATION, Successor to RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY, Carrier, Defendants\nNo. COA10-580\n(Filed: 5 April 2011)\n1. Workers\u2019 Compensation\u2014 commissioners \u2014 qualified to sit on Full Commission \u2014 neither adjudicated claim in the first instance\nTwo commissioners who participated in the Full Industrial Commission\u2019s decision to affirm the deputy commissioner\u2019s initial decision in plaintiff\u2019s workers\u2019 compensation case were qualified to sit on the Full Commission in the present case. Neither commissioner adjudicated plaintiff\u2019s claim \u201cin the first instance\u201d under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 97-84.\n2. Workers\u2019 Compensation\u2014 denial of motion to set aside prior decision \u2014 failed to raise issue \u2014 denial proper\nThe Industrial Commission did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff\u2019s motion to set aside its prior decision based on allegations that defendants committed fraud on the Commission. Plaintiff had the opportunity in the prior proceedings to raise her concerns, and failed to do so.\n3. Collateral Estoppel and Res Judicata\u2014 workers\u2019 compensation \u2014 prior opinion and award \u2014 issue decided \u2014 final decision\nThe Industrial Commission did not err in concluding that the doctrine of res judicata precluded plaintiff from claiming that certain medical conditions were related to her 4 January accident. Plaintiff failed to appeal the Commission\u2019s determination in its prior opinion and award that certain medical conditions were not related to the 4 January accident, and that decision became final.\n4. Workers\u2019 Compensation\u2014 claim for modification of prior award \u2014 properly denied\nThe Industrial Commission properly denied plaintiff\u2019s claim for modification of her prior award. The Commission\u2019s conclusion that plaintiff did not satisfy her burden of proving a change of condition under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 97-47 was supported by the Commission\u2019s findings and the evidence upon which they were based.\nAppeal by plaintiff from opinion and award entered 21 December 2009 by the North Carolina Industrial Commission. Heard in the Court of Appeals 17 November 2010.\nLazona Gale Spears, pro se, plaintiff-appellant.\nYoung Moore and Henderson P.A., by Jeffrey T. Linder and Julia E. Dixon, for defendants-appellees." }, "file_name": "0716-01", "first_page_order": 724, "last_page_order": 732 }