Court Opinion

ID: 9607804
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 03:02:07.759769+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:40.522993
License: Public Domain

WYNN, Judge,
dissenting.
In this case, the majority adopted the Larson test and in applying the test, concluded that Mr. Freeman is barred from receiving workers’ compensation benefits for his injury because of his misrepresentations at the time of his hiring. Because I disagree with the adoption of the Larson test, I respectfully dissent.
In published and unpublished opinions, this Court has rejected the Larson test. In Hooker, the defendants argued that this Court should adopt a misrepresentation defense in workers’ compensation cases. Hooker v. Stokes-Reynolds Hosp., 161 N.C. App. 111, 115, 587 S.E.2d 440, 443 (2003), disc. review denied, 358 N.C. 234, 594 S.E.2d 192 (2004). In response, this Court stated that “neither the Industrial Commission nor this Court has the authority to adopt such a defense, if it is not found in the Worker’s Compensation Act. Our Supreme Court ‘has warned against any inclination toward judicial legislation’ in the construction of the Worker’s Compensation Act.” Id. (citation omitted).
Additionally, as the majority concedes, this Court has rejected the Larson test in an unpublished opinion. In McCollum v. Atlas Van *49Lines, the defendants urged this Court to adopt the three-part Larson test to bar workers’ compensation recovery where an employee made misrepresentations about his physical condition. McCollum v. Atlas Van Lines, 166 N.C. App. 280, 603 S.E.2d 167 (unpublished, Sept. 7, 2004), disc. review denied, 359 N.C. 190, 607 S.E.2d 276 (2004). This court cited Hooker as the basis for the rejection of the Larson test, and concluded that “defendants’ . . . argument is without merit.” Id.
Not only have we previously rejected the Larson test, there is no legislative authority for this Court to adopt such a test. Our Supreme Court has stated:
With respect to interpreting the Workers’ Compensation Act, this Court has warned against any inclination toward judicial legislation .... This Court has long distinguished between liberal construction of statutes and impermissible judicial legislation or the act of a court in “ingrafting upon a law something that has been omitted, which [it] believes ought to have been embraced.”
Johnson v. Southern Indus. Constructors, Inc., 347 N.C. 530, 536, 495 S.E.2d 356, 359-60 (1998) (citations omitted). Because the Larson test is not included in our Workers’ Compensation Act, the adoption of the test by this Court is impermissible judicial legislation. Accordingly, I must dissent.