{ "id": 8525853, "name": "ROSCOE POE, Employee v. ACME BUILDERS, Employer, and IOWA NATIONAL MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Insurance Carrier", "name_abbreviation": "Poe v. Acme Builders", "decision_date": "1984-06-19", "docket_number": "No. 8310IC783", "first_page": "147", "last_page": "152", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "69 N.C. App. 147" } ], "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": "284 S.E. 2d 538", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "540" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "55 N.C. App. 89", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8526768 ], "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "90" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/55/0089-01" ] }, { "cite": "181 S.E. 2d 811", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1971, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "factual findings that it was a hot day, that plaintiff dock worker was hurrying and that the load lifted weighed 120 pounds insufficient to support an award on grounds of accident" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "11 N.C. App. 583", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8556183 ], "year": 1971, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "factual findings that it was a hot day, that plaintiff dock worker was hurrying and that the load lifted weighed 120 pounds insufficient to support an award on grounds of accident" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/11/0583-01" ] }, { "cite": "226 S.E. 2d 510", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1976, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "no accident where plaintiff was employed as a yard worker and at the time of injury had been assigned work as a painter" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "290 N.C. 550", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8561988, 8561961, 8562027, 8561934, 8561908 ], "year": 1976, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "no accident where plaintiff was employed as a yard worker and at the time of injury had been assigned work as a painter" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/290/0550-04", "/nc/290/0550-03", "/nc/290/0550-05", "/nc/290/0550-02", "/nc/290/0550-01" ] }, { "cite": "224 S.E. 2d 297", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1976, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "no accident where plaintiff was employed as a yard worker and at the time of injury had been assigned work as a painter" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "29 N.C. App. 395", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8556041 ], "year": 1976, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "no accident where plaintiff was employed as a yard worker and at the time of injury had been assigned work as a painter" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/29/0395-01" ] }, { "cite": "110 S.E. 2d 898", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1959, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "251 N.C. 194", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8624262 ], "year": 1959, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/251/0194-01" ] }, { "cite": "235 S.E. 2d 254", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "33 N.C. App. 310", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8549481 ], "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/33/0310-01" ] }, { "cite": "157 S.E. 2d 1", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "271 N.C. 586", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8565668 ], "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/271/0586-01" ] }, { "cite": "264 S.E. 2d 360", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "awarding benefits for plaintiffs back injury where there was evidence that plaintiffs normal work routine was interrupted when she had to pull a rod out of an unusually tight bolt of cloth, and evidence that the effort she exerted in so doing was unusual" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "46 N.C. App. 22", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8548849 ], "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "awarding benefits for plaintiffs back injury where there was evidence that plaintiffs normal work routine was interrupted when she had to pull a rod out of an unusually tight bolt of cloth, and evidence that the effort she exerted in so doing was unusual" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/46/0022-01" ] }, { "cite": "294 S.E. 2d 370", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "306 N.C. 556", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8571994, 8571950, 8572020, 8571925, 8572058 ], "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/306/0556-03", "/nc/306/0556-02", "/nc/306/0556-04", "/nc/306/0556-01", "/nc/306/0556-05" ] }, { "cite": "292 S.E. 2d 18", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "57 N.C. App. 579", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8525314 ], "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/57/0579-01" ] }, { "cite": "292 S.E. 2d 763", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "766", "parenthetical": "\"Unusualness and unexpectedness\" are the essence of an accident" } ], "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": "\"Unusualness and unexpectedness\" are the essence of an accident" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/58/0113-01" ] }, { "cite": "124 S.E. 2d 109", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1962, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "111", "parenthetical": "defining accident as \"a result produced by a fortuitous cause\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "256 N.C. 427", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8573005 ], "year": 1962, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "428", "parenthetical": "defining accident as \"a result produced by a fortuitous cause\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/256/0427-01" ] }, { "cite": "300 S.E. 2d 455", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "456", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" }, { "page": "457", "parenthetical": "\"extra exertion and twisting movements . . . support the conclusion that plaintiffs injury resulted from an unexpected and unforeseen event . . .\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "61 N.C. App. 258", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8520432 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "260", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" }, { "page": "262", "parenthetical": "\"extra exertion and twisting movements . . . support the conclusion that plaintiffs injury resulted from an unexpected and unforeseen event . . .\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/61/0258-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 634, "char_count": 12805, "ocr_confidence": 0.787, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.298132930532853e-08, "percentile": 0.3332439458825592 }, "sha256": "e63e1cf15eec9ddf2938eb46c569f1a59bed697d9a0de9360d63bcf531a58ccb", "simhash": "1:866325fb4ecf8656", "word_count": 2084 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:17:04.613219+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges Braswell and Eagles concur." ], "parties": [ "ROSCOE POE, Employee v. ACME BUILDERS, Employer, and IOWA NATIONAL MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Insurance Carrier" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "VAUGHN, Chief Judge.\nThe sole issue on appeal is whether plaintiffs injury was the result of an accident arising out of and in the course of employ-rnent and therefore compensable under North Carolina\u2019s Workers\u2019 Compensation Act. We hold that the injury did not occur as a result of such an accident and reverse the decision of the Industrial Commission.\nUnder the North Carolina Workers\u2019 Compensation Act, an injury arising out of and in the course of employment is com-pensable only if caused by an \u201caccident.\u201d . . . \u201cOur Supreme Court has defined the term \u2018accident\u2019 as used in the Workers\u2019 Compensation Act as \u2018an unlooked for and untoward event which is not expected or designed by the person who suffers the injury . . . .\u2019 The elements of an \u2018accident\u2019 are the interruption of the routine of work and the introduction thereby of unusual conditions likely to result in unexpected consequences.\u201d\nAdams v. Burlington Industries, 61 N.C. App. 258, 260, 300 S.E. 2d 455, 456 (1983) (citations omitted). See also Harding v. Thomas & Howard Co., 256 N.C. 427, 428, 124 S.E. 2d 109, 111 (1962) (defining accident as \u201ca result produced by a fortuitous cause\u201d); Davis v. Raleigh Rental Center, 58 N.C. App. 113, 116, 292 S.E. 2d 763, 766 (1982) (\u201cUnusualness and unexpectedness\u201d are the essence of an accident).\nEvidence which satisfies the requirements of an interruption of the work routine and the introduction of unusual conditions is typified by Gladson v. Piedmont Stores, 57 N.C. App. 579, 292 S.E. 2d 18, review denied, 306 N.C. 556, 294 S.E. 2d 370 (1982), a case in which the court found as a matter of law that an accident occurred when the plaintiff sustained an injury while lifting a crate:\nThe heavier than expected and heavier than usual nature of the crate constituted the requisite \u201cunlooked for and untoward event . . . not expected or designed by [plaintiff].\u201d . . . The work routine, the lifting of lighter crates, was interrupted by the introduction of a crate heavier than expected and heavier than usual. This created an unusual condition, an unforeseen event . . . .\u201d\nId. at 580-1, 292 S.E. 2d at 19. See Porter v. Shelby Knit, Inc., 46 N.C. App. 22, 264 S.E. 2d 360 (1980) (awarding benefits for plaintiffs back injury where there was evidence that plaintiffs normal work routine was interrupted when she had to pull a rod out of an unusually tight bolt of cloth, and evidence that the effort she exerted in so doing was unusual).\nIn the case at bar, we find no comparable unlooked for or untoward event interrupting the plaintiffs work routine. As stated in the order of the Deputy Commissioner,\nThe only interruption of claimant\u2019s work routine consisted of the pop in the left knee or the manifestation of injury itself. The terms \u201cinjury\u201d and \u201caccident\u201d as used in the Workers\u2019 Compensation Act are not synonymous. Rhinehart v. Super Market, 271 N.C. 586, 157 S.E. 2d 1 (1967).\nCircumstances sufficient to constitute an interruption of a given work routine typically involve an undertaking by the employee of duties not usual and customary. Key v. Woodcraft, Inc., 33 N.C. App. 310, 235 S.E. 2d 254 (1977), contrasts with the instant case and gives an example of a factual context where plaintiffs customary job duties were interrupted. In Key, the plaintiff was a machine operator whose work almost exclusively entailed the handling of finished lumber. On the day in question, the plaintiff ruptured a disc when he attempted to help a fellow employee raise a large piece of scrap lumber. This Court stated that this evidence showed that the plaintiff was not carrying out his usual and customary duties, and affirmed the award of benefits made by the Industrial Commission.\nThe evidence in the case before us demonstrates exactly the opposite \u2014 that plaintiff was engaged in his usual and customary duties. Plaintiff was hired to perform a number of tasks connected with his employer\u2019s business of home improvement. Shingling was one of those tasks and was therefore a part of, rather than an interruption of, plaintiffs work routine. Plaintiff argues that he was hired as a carpenter, and that his normal work routine as a carpenter was therefore interrupted by the shingling job. The record reveals that plaintiffs assigned duties encompassed more than carpentry and hence we reject plaintiffs argument.\nIn Faires v. McDevitt and Street Co., 251 N.C. 194, 110 S.E. 2d 898 (1959), the plaintiff, a carpenter, received his injury while stripping concrete forms. This job involved using crowbars and hammers to remove the forms from the hardened concrete that had been poured into the forms, and also to pull nails from the bottoms of the forms. There was evidence that this was not the sort of work usually done by the plaintiff, but instead was customarily done by laborers.\nThe evidence before us differs significantly from that of Faires. Plaintiffs testimony that he was hired as a carpenter furnishes only a superficial parallel. Unlike the evidence in Faires, the evidence before us does not support the conclusion that plaintiff was working at a job other than that for which he was hired when he was injured. An examination of the record satisfies us that regardless of whether plaintiffs job title was actually that of \u201ccarpenter,\u201d plaintiff was in fact hired to do a variety of jobs associated with home improvement. Shingling was one of those jobs. Plaintiff even testified that he had already worked on another shingling job prior to the one during which he sustained his injury. Shingling was therefore one of plaintiffs usual and customary duties.\nThere was evidence indicating that defendant did not obtain many shingling jobs, but we cannot say that the infrequency of shingling jobs rendered such jobs interruptions of plaintiffs work routine where plaintiff was hired to do an unspecified number of tasks related to home improvement. The assigning of an employee to a particular task where the work routine for that employee involves a variety of tasks does not necessarily constitute an interruption of the work. See Hewett v. Supply Co., 29 N.C. App. 395, 224 S.E. 2d 297, review denied, 290 N.C. 550, 226 S.E. 2d 510 (1976) (no accident where plaintiff was employed as a yard worker and at the time of injury had been assigned work as a painter).\nFurthermore, even if we were to find shingling an interruption of the plaintiffs normal work routine \u2014 and we emphasize that we do not \u2014 mere interruption of the work routine does not by itself insure the finding of a compensable accident. The interruption must introduce \u201cunusual conditions likely to result in unexpected consequences.\u201d See Adams v. Burlington Industries, supra. For example, in Faires v. McDevitt and Street Co., supra, the plaintiff not only established an interruption of his normal work routine by producing evidence that he did not customarily perform the job during the performance of which he was injured, he also produced evidence of the extreme strain exerted in executing a task ordinarily carried out by two workers. The Supreme Court held that the hernia sustained by the plaintiff was an injury resulting from accident and awarded the plaintiff benefits. Accord, Adams v. Burlington Industries, 61 N.C. App. 258, 262, 300 S.E. 2d 455, 457 (1983) (\u201cextra exertion and twisting movements . . . support the conclusion that plaintiffs injury resulted from an unexpected and unforeseen event . . .\u201d). Cf. Hewett v. Supply Co., supra (no compensable accident where evidence merely showed that plaintiff, in climbing out of a cement bin he was painting, moved from a squatting to a standing position); Southards v. Motor Lines, 11 N.C. App. 583, 181 S.E. 2d 811 (1971) (factual findings that it was a hot day, that plaintiff dock worker was hurrying and that the load lifted weighed 120 pounds insufficient to support an award on grounds of accident). There is no evidence before us of unusual conditions, namely, no evidence that in shifting from a bending to a squatting position while shingling the roof, plaintiff unduly exerted himself or made any unusual movements.\n\u201cAn injury which occurs under normal work conditions is not considered an accident arising out of employment.\u201d Trudell v. Heating & Air Conditioning Co., 55 N.C. App. 89, 90, 284 S.E. 2d 538, 540 (1981). Plaintiffs knee injury occurred under normal work conditions. The evidence before us does not support an award of benefits under North Carolina\u2019s Workers\u2019 Compensation Act on the grounds of injury suffered as a result of an accident.\nReversed.\nJudges Braswell and Eagles concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "VAUGHN, Chief Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "McNairy, Clifford & Clendenin, by Harry H. Clendenin, III, for plaintiff appellee.", "Tuggle, Duggins, Meschan, Thornton & Elrod, P.A., by Sally A. Lawing, for defendant appellants." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "ROSCOE POE, Employee v. ACME BUILDERS, Employer, and IOWA NATIONAL MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Insurance Carrier\nNo. 8310IC783\n(Filed 19 June 1984)\nMaster and Servant 8 55.1\u2014 workers\u2019 compensation \u2014 injury while shifting position \u2014no injury by accident\nPlaintiff did not suffer a compensable injury by \u201caccident\u201d when he sustained a knee injury in shifting from a bending to a squatting position while shingling a roof where plaintiff was hired to perform a number of tasks connected with his employer\u2019s business of home improvement, plaintiff had already worked on another shingling job prior to the one during which he sustained his injury and shingling was therefore one of plaintiffs usual and customary duties, and there was no evidence that plaintiff unduly exerted himself or made any unusual movements in changing his position.\nAppeal by defendants from North Carolina Industrial Commission. Opinion and Award entered 5 May 1983. Heard in the Court of Appeals 2 May 1984.\nDefendants are appealing an order and award of the Industrial Commission which reversed an order of the Deputy Commissioner and awarded workers\u2019 compensation benefits to plaintiff on the grounds that plaintiff suffered an injury as a result of an accident arising out of and in the course of employment. The plaintiff employee had alleged in his claim that he sustained a knee injury, a torn medial meniscus, while working on a shingling job for defendant employer Acme Builders (hereinafter \u201cAcme\u201d).\nThe parties are in substantial agreement as to the facts and circumstances leading up to plaintiffs claim, which are as follows: In June 1982, at the time of the alleged injury by accident, plaintiff had been employed by Acme Builders, a home improvement and remodeling business, for three or four months. Although plaintiff stated he was \u201chired as a carpenter,\u201d it appears from his testimony and also from the testimony of Acme\u2019s owner, that plaintiff was hired to and in fact performed a variety of tasks related to the home improvement business, including interior remodeling, constructing rooms, putting up aluminum siding, installing storm windows and doors, and shingling roofs.\nAcme\u2019s owner testified that plaintiff, like all of Acme\u2019s employees, was not hired to do any one particular job, but to do \u201canything that comes to hand.\u201d Prior to the date of the incident upon which he bases his claim, plaintiff had done shingling for Acme on one other occasion, that occasion being during the only other roofing job Acme had obtained since plaintiff was hired by them.\nIn June 1982, Acme accepted the reshingling job in question. Plaintiff and other employees were assigned to work on this job. On the second day of the job, either the 17th or 18th of June 1982, at about 11 a.m., plaintiff, who had been on the job since about 7 a.m. that morning, allegedly injured his knee when he shifted his body from a bending posture to a kneeling or squatting position. According to plaintiffs testimony, when he changed position in this fashion, his \u201cknee kind of popped and stung.\u201d Plaintiff was nevertheless able to continue to work for the remainder of that day and for some days thereafter, finally seeking medical treatment on 9 July 1982. Plaintiffs problem was diagnosed as a torn medial meniscus, which was ultimately treated by surgery. Plaintiff then sought workers\u2019 compensation benefits.\nIn the order and award issued upon the hearing of plaintiffs claim, the Deputy Commissioner found that plaintiff sustained an injury to his knee while working, but concluded that since the injury was sustained while performing assigned duties in a customary fashion, the injury did not occur by accident and was not therefore compensable. Upon plaintiffs appeal to the full Commission that body reversed, finding that shingling constituted an interruption of the plaintiffs work routine and that his injury was accidental and that he was entitled to compensation. From the order of the Industrial Commission awarding plaintiff workers\u2019 compensation benefits, defendants appeal.\nMcNairy, Clifford & Clendenin, by Harry H. Clendenin, III, for plaintiff appellee.\nTuggle, Duggins, Meschan, Thornton & Elrod, P.A., by Sally A. Lawing, for defendant appellants." }, "file_name": "0147-01", "first_page_order": 175, "last_page_order": 180 }