{ "id": 8526511, "name": "TINA MARIE BRIDGERS v. WHITEVILLE APPAREL CORPORATION", "name_abbreviation": "Bridgers v. Whiteville Apparel Corp.", "decision_date": "1984-12-18", "docket_number": "No. 8413DC440", "first_page": "800", "last_page": "802", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "71 N.C. App. 800" } ], "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": "246 S.E. 2d 215", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "295 N.C. 465", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8563683, 8563718, 8563572, 8563607, 8563641 ], "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/295/0465-04", "/nc/295/0465-05", "/nc/295/0465-01", "/nc/295/0465-02", "/nc/295/0465-03" ] }, { "cite": "244 S.E. 2d 272", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "36 N.C. App. 293", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8553040 ], "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/36/0293-01" ] }, { "cite": "209 S.E. 2d 494", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1974, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "499" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "286 N.C. 130", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8563771 ], "year": 1974, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "137" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/286/0130-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 312, "char_count": 5084, "ocr_confidence": 0.808, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.676830387708631e-08, "percentile": 0.35663642938256246 }, "sha256": "fde4fe1237e480c2d2deb12e9b5d671c6c0092b672ae7f0e72f19c46395d968b", "simhash": "1:da43ddb3789e9c36", "word_count": 796 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:51:06.115640+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges Whichard and Eagles concur." ], "parties": [ "TINA MARIE BRIDGERS v. WHITEVILLE APPAREL CORPORATION" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "HEDRICK, Judge.\nJudgment on the pleadings is appropriate when all the material allegations of fact are admitted in the pleadings and only questions of law remain. Ragsdale v. Kennedy, 286 N.C. 130, 137, 209 S.E. 2d 494, 499 (1974). All facts and permissible inferences must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Id.\nPlaintiff contends the pleadings raise a factual issue as to whether she has a claim for relief under G.S. 97-6.1. That statute provides in pertinent part:\n(a) No employer may discharge or demote any employee because the employee has instituted or caused to be instituted, in good faith, any proceeding under the North Carolina Workers\u2019 Compensation Act, or has testified or is about to testify in any such proceeding.\n(b) Any employer who violates any provision of this section shall be liable in a civil action for reasonable damages suffered by an employee as a result of the violation, and an employee discharged or demoted in violation of this section shall be entitled to be reinstated to his former position. The burden of proof shall be upon the employee.\n(e) The failure of an employer to continue to employ, either in employment or at the employee\u2019s previous level of employment, an employee who receives compensation for permanent disability, total or partial, shall in no manner be deemed a violation of this section.\nThe trial court granted judgment on the pleadings because both the complaint and answer asserted that plaintiff had received permanent partial disability compensation, thereby barring her statutory claim under G.S. 97-6.1(e). North Carolina does not recognize a claim for relief apart from G.S. 97-6.1 for a discharge in retaliation for filing a workers\u2019 compensation claim. Dockery v. Table Co., 36 N.C. App. 293, 244 S.E. 2d 272, disc. rev. denied, 295 N.C. 465, 246 S.E. 2d 215 (1978).\nPlaintiff argues that G.S. 97-6.1(e) has no application to this case since the words \u201cto continue\u201d only apply where the employment relationship continued from the time of injury to the time of compensation. Her complaint alleges that her employment was not continuous from the time of her injury to the time she received her permanent disability settlement.\nNo reasonable construction of G.S. 97-6.1(e) supports plaintiffs argument. The disputed factual issue of whether she was discharged prior to her September rehiring and firing is not material to her claim for relief. The plain and unambiguous language of G.S. 97-6.1 allows an employer to discharge an employee who has received permanent disability compensation without being liable under G.S. 97-6.1(a) and (b) for retaliatory discharge. To state that the employment relationship must have been continuous from injury to compensation before the employer is entitled to the protection of G.S. 97-6.1(e) is to read words and meaning into the statute that were not stated or intended by the legislature. The allegation in plaintiffs complaint that she has received permanent partial disability compensation creates an insurmountable bar for any recovery under the statute.\nAffirmed.\nJudges Whichard and Eagles concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "HEDRICK, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Hester, Johnson & Johnson, by H. Clifton Hester, for plainr tiff, appellant.", "Lee & Lee, by J. B. Lee, III, for defendant, appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "TINA MARIE BRIDGERS v. WHITEVILLE APPAREL CORPORATION\nNo. 8413DC440\n(Filed 18 December 1984)\nMaster and Servant 8 10.2\u2014 workers\u2019 compensation claim \u2014 retaliatory discharge-judgment on the pleadings proper\nJudgment on the pleadings for defendant in a retaliatory discharge action arising from a workers\u2019 compensation claim was appropriate where both the complaint and answer asserted that plaintiff had received permanent partial disability compensation. The plain and unambiguous language of G.S. 97-6.1(e) allows an employer to discharge an employee who has received permanent disability compensation. G.S. 1A-1, Rule 12(c).\nAppeal by plaintiff from Wood, Judge. Judgment entered 28 February 1984 in District Court, Bladen County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 6 December 1984.\nPlaintiff brought this action against defendant under G.S. 97-6.1 for retaliatory discharge. Her complaint made the following allegations: Plaintiff was injured while working for defendant and placed on leave of absence until 8 August 1983. She filed a workers\u2019 compensation claim for her injury. On 8 August 1983 plaintiff returned to work to find that she \u201cno longer had her job with the [defendant, and the [defendant extended [her] leave of absence indefinitely.\u201d Plaintiff alleged that defendant discharged her for filing a claim for unemployment benefits after 8 August 1983. Defendant rehired her on 26 September 1983. On 28 September 1983 plaintiff reached a settlement with defendant\u2019s insurance carrier for permanent partial disability. Defendant fired her two days later, which she alleged was in retaliation for her workers\u2019 compensation settlement.\nDefendant denied having ever discharged plaintiff.\nThe trial court granted defendant\u2019s motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to G.S. 1A-1, Rule 12(c). Plaintiff appealed.\nHester, Johnson & Johnson, by H. Clifton Hester, for plainr tiff, appellant.\nLee & Lee, by J. B. Lee, III, for defendant, appellee." }, "file_name": "0800-01", "first_page_order": 834, "last_page_order": 836 }