Case Name: ROGER LONG, Employee/Plaintiff v. MORGANTON DYEING & FINISHING CO., Employee, and OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY, Carrier, Defendants
Court: North Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1987-01-20
Citations: 84 N.C. App. 81
Docket Number: No. 8610IC555
Parties: ROGER LONG, Employee/Plaintiff v. MORGANTON DYEING & FINISHING CO., Employee, and OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY, Carrier, Defendants
Judges: Judge Arnold concurs.
Reporter: North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports
Volume: 84
Pages: 81–86

Head Matter:
ROGER LONG, Employee/Plaintiff v. MORGANTON DYEING & FINISHING CO., Employee, and OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY, Carrier, Defendants
No. 8610IC555
(Filed 20 January 1987)
1. Master and Servant 8 65.1— workers’ compensation —hernia—failure of employee to show pain
Plaintiffs testimony that he experienced muscular “strain” after the appearance of a lump in his groin and that, about a month after his accident, he began to feel “sick to [his] stomach” was insufficient to prove that his hernia was accompanied by “pain” as required by N.C.G.S. § 97-2(18)(c).
2. Master and Servant 8 65.1— workers’ compensation — hernia — failure to show pain —no causal connection between hernia and accident
The Industrial Commission did not err in concluding that plaintiff failed to establish a causal connection between his hernia and his injury by accident, since without a finding of pain, there could be no causal connection between the hernia and the injury even if the Commission was otherwise convinced that the hernia was caused by an accident arising out of and in the course of employment.
Judge Johnson dissenting.
APPEAL by plaintiff-employee from the Opinion and Award of the North Carolina Industrial Commission filed 6 March 1986. Heard in the Court of Appeals 11 November 1986.
This is a workers’ compensation case where plaintiff seeks to recover for a hernia. Plaintiff had worked in defendant’s packing department for about five years. On 22 January 1985, at the request of his supervisor, plaintiff began temporarily working at a different job. That position required him to lift rolls of cloth which were much heavier than the ones that his usual job required him to lift. The next day, plaintiff noticed a lump in his groin area. He suffered no pain, however, and continued to work in that capacity for another two weeks before returning to his usual job. It was not until approximately a month after the lump first appeared that plaintiff became nauseated and sought treatment.
Plaintiffs doctor diagnosed the lump as a direct inguinal hernia. After it was successfully treated, plaintiff filed this claim for workers’ compensation. After a hearing, the deputy commissioner found that although plaintiff had sustained an injury by accident, he had failed to show that the hernia was accompanied by pain. Consequently, the deputy commissioner concluded that plaintiff failed to establish a causal connection between his hernia and the injury by accident. Plaintiff appealed to the full Commission, which affirmed the deputy commissioner.
McMurray & McMurray, by Martha McMurray, for the plaintiff-appellant.
Patton, Starnes, Thompson & Aycock, by Thomas M. Starnes, for the defendant-appellees.

Opinion:
EAGLES, Judge.
In reviewing decisions of the Industrial Commission, we are limited to determining whether the findings of the Commission are supported by competent evidence and whether those findings justify its legal conclusions. Roper v. J.P. Stevens & Co., 65 N.C. App. 69, 308 S.E. 2d 485 (1983), disc. review denied, 310 N.C. 309, 312 S.E. 2d 652 (1984). Plaintiff argues that the Commission's finding that he failed to prove that his hernia was accompanied by pain is unsupported by the evidence and that the finding does not justify the Commission's conclusion that there was no causal connection between defendant's hernia and the accident. Plaintiff has failed to show where there is any error in the Commission's decision. Therefore, we must affirm.
G.S. 97-2(18) provides that, in all claims for compensation for hernia resulting from an injury by accident, the claimant must prove to the satisfaction of the Commission:
(a) That there was an injury resulting in a hernia;
(b) That the hernia appeared suddenly;
(c) That it was accompanied by pain;
(d) That the hernia immediately followed an accident; and
(e) That the hernia did not exist prior to the accident for which compensation is claimed. G.S. 97-2(18). [Emphasis added.]
To recover compensation, a plaintiff must prove the existence of each of the above five elements. Hensley v. Cooperative, 246 N.C. 274, 98 S.E. 2d 289 (1957). The absence of any one of them will result in the denial of compensation. Lutes v. Tobacco Co., 19 N.C. App. 380, 198 S.E. 2d 746 (1973).
Here, the Commission found that plaintiff failed to prove that his hernia was accompanied by any pain. An examination of the record reveals that there is competent evidence to support that finding. Plaintiff testified that, after the lump appeared, he experienced muscular "strain" while lifting the 75-100 pound rolls of cloth at work and that about a month after the accident he began to feel "sick to my stomach." He contends that this testimony is sufficient to constitute proof of "pain." While we agree with plaintiff that the feeling of pain is subjective and that an employee need not necessarily use the term "pain" before compensation may be awarded, plaintiffs testimony here clearly does not satisfy the mandatory requirement of G.S. 97-2(18)(c).
Although plaintiff testified that he felt sick to his stomach, he also stated that it "really never hurt." Furthermore, the muscle strain which he alluded to was, according to his own testimony, unrelated to his hernia. In fact, plaintiff stated that the muscle strain was the same kind of strain anyone feels when lifting a heavy object. Therefore, neither the general feeling of nausea nor the muscle strain which plaintiff described in his testimony can be equated with "pain" as that term is used in G.S. 97-2(18)(c). Since plaintiff never testified that he suffered any pain, the Commission's finding that he failed to prove that his hernia was accompanied by pain is supported by competent evidence.
Plaintiff also argues that the Commission erred in concluding that he failed to establish a causal connection between his hernia and his injury by accident. More specifically, plaintiff states that, even without a finding of pain, he established a causal connection by proving to the satisfaction of the Commission that the hernia was a result of the accident. Plaintiff contends that the showing of pain is not necessary under a liberal construction of the statute where the Commission is otherwise satisfied as to causation. We agree that the statute must be liberally construed. McMahan v. Supermarket, 24 N.C. App. 113, 210 S.E. 2d 214 (1974). We also agree that the record indicates that the Commission believed that plaintiff s hernia was, in fact, caused by his accident at work. Nevertheless, the Commission properly found that no causal connection was established, as required by G.S. 97-2(18).
Here, the statute is unambiguous in requiring that each of the five listed elements must be proven before compensation may be awarded. Where a statute is clear, there is no reason for judicial construction and courts must give the statute its plain meaning. News and Observer v. State; Co. of Wake v. State; Murphy v. State, 312 N.C. 276, 322 S.E. 2d 133 (1984). The statute, in effect, defines what constitutes a causal connection for purposes of a hernia injury and, when any one of the statute's elements is not proven, a causal connection does not exist. See, Lutes v. Tobacco Co., supra; 1B Larson, The Law of Workers' Compensation Section 39.71 (1986). This is true even if the Commission is otherwise convinced that the hernia was caused by an accident arising out of and in the course of employment. Plaintiffs failure to prove the hernia was accompanied by pain requires that his claim be denied.
Affirmed.
Judge Arnold concurs.
Judge Johnson dissents.