Court Opinion

ID: 9626767
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 08:23:38.240918+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:33.444130
License: Public Domain

Chief Justice PARKER
dissenting in part; concurring in part.
In my view the majority’s reliance on Biddix v. Rex Mills, Inc., 237 N.C. 660, 75 S.E.2d 777 (1953), to support its holding that estoppel is applicable is misplaced. In Biddix, the accident giving rise to the plaintiff’s claim for benefits occurred on 15 June 1950. Id. at 661, 75 S.E.2d at 778. On 12 September 1951, the plaintiff wrote a letter to the Industrial Commission requesting a hearing; the letter was received by the Commission on 14 September 1951. Id at 661, 75 S.E.2d at 779. Prior to this letter, the plaintiff had filed no claim with the Commission. Id. Defendant employer had paid for the plaintiff’s medical treatment, and it was stipulated that the last payment was made 16 January 1951. Id. The hearing commissioner found as fact and concluded as a matter of law that the plaintiff’s claim was barred by N.C.G.S. § 97-24(a), which at that time required that the claim be filed within one year of the injury. Id. On appeal to the Full Commission, the majority of the Commission concluded the following:
*43(1) “that by the enactment of Chapter 823, Session Laws of 1947, it was the legislative intent to give an injured employee twelve months from the date of the last payment of bills for medical or other treatment, in cases in which only medical or other treatment bills are paid, within which to request a review of his case for the purpose of ascertaining his rights under the Compensation Act;” (2) that the payment of the medical bills, the reports thereof, and the failure to enter any formal denial of liability “constitute waiver of the requirement for making or filing timely claim, such recognition of liability by the employer eliminating the question of whether a claim for compensation on (sic) has been made;” and, (3) “in all events, payment of medical bills under the provisions of the Compensation Act over an extended period of time under circumstances revealed by this record is calculated to lull an injured employee into a false sense of security, and lapse of time ought not to bar the employee’s claim unless such be the clear mandate of the law.”
Biddix, 237 N.C. at 661-62, 75 S.E.2d at 779. The Full Commission reversed the deputy commissioner and set the matter for hearing on its merits. On appeal by the defendants to the superior court, the trial court affirmed the order of the Industrial Commission. Id. at 662, 75 S.E.2d at 779.
On appeal by the defendants to this Court, the Court noted that the Commission, in reaching its conclusion that the defendants were estopped to plead the bar of N.C.G.S. § 97-24, “had resort[ed] to matters appearing in the files of the Commission which constitute no part of the evidence in the case or the record in the cause.” Id. After discussing the jurisdiction of the Industrial Commission, this Court noted that “[Recourse may not be had to records, files, evidence, or data not. . . presented to the court for consideration” and held that the Commission erred “in basing its decision on information it says its files do or do not disclose.” Id. at 663, 75 S.E.2d at 780. This Court then discussed the medical payments, holding that the voluntary payment of medical expenses did not constitute an admission of liability. “It cannot be said that when an employer does what the Act requires or permits him to do, he thereby perforce admits liability and waives the protective provisions of a statute enacted in his behalf. G.S. 97-25.” Id. at 664, 75 S.E.2d at 780. The Court then addressed what it calls the crux of the controversy, namely whether the Session Law referenced by the Commission, which amended N.C.G.S. § 97-47, had any applicability to the plaintiff’s claim. The *44Court concluded that the “amendatory Act has no relation to the filing of original claims for compensation or the time within which such claims are to be filed. It amends G.S. 97-47 and it relates exclusively to the time within which an employee may file a petition for a review of an award theretofore made.” Id. at 665, 75 S.E.2d at 781 (citations omitted). This Court reversed the trial court. Id. at 666, 75 S.E.2d at 782.
In the discussion of the payment of medical bills, this Court analogized the employer’s voluntary payment of medical bills to the act of mercy by the Good Samaritan and noted that no one has suggested that by his conduct the Good Samaritan impliedly admitted that he was liable for the injuries the beaten man sustained. This Court then made the following statement, which in the context of the decision is obiter dictum:
It must not be understood that we hold an employer may not by his conduct waive the filing of a claim within the time required by law. The law of estoppel applies in compensation proceedings as in all other cases. We merely hold that the facts here appearing, including those found by the full Commission, are insufficient to invoke the doctrine in this case. Wilson v. Clement Co., supra; Lilly v. Belk Brothers, supra; Jacobs v. Manufacturing Co., 229 N.C. 660, 50 S.E.2d 738; Lineberry v. Town of Mebane, supra; Whitted v. Palmer-Bee Co., supra.
Id. at 665, 75 S.E.2d at 781.
Interestingly, Lineberry v. Town of Mebane, 218 N.C. 737, 12 S.E.2d 252 (1940), and Whitted v. Palmer-Bee Co., 228 N.C. 447, 46 S.E.2d 109 (1948), do not mention estoppel. Each of the other cases, Wilson, Lilly, and Jacobs, determined that the evidence and facts found by the Commission did not support application of the doctrine. However, language in Wilson v. E.H. Clement Co., 207 N.C. 541, 177 S.E. 797 (1935) is instructive.
In Wilson, the plaintiff argued that C.S., 8081 (ff), current N.C.G.S. § 97-24, is a statute of limitations that could be waived by the defendants and that by their conduct the defendants lulled the plaintiff into inaction and were thereby estopped to assert the bar of the statute. Id. at 543, 177 S.E. at 798. The defendants argued that the statute is not a statute of limitations, but a condition annexed to the cause of action which cannot be waived by the parties. Id. The Court stated the following:
*45It is unnecessary to decide whether C.S., 8081 (ff), is a condition precedent or a statute of limitations.
Of course, if it is a condition annexed to the cause of action of similar character to C.S., 160, obviously the claimant was entitled to no compensation. Conceding, but not deciding, that the statute is one of limitations, is there any evidence upon which to base the doctrine of equitable estoppel? The nature of such estoppel and the elements thereof, as heretofore declared and applied, were stated in Franklin v. Franks, 205 N.C. 96, [170 S.E. 113 (1933)]. The Court said: “The general rule is that a party may either by agreement or conduct estop himself from pleading the statute of limitations as a defense to an obligation. ... To constitute such estoppel, there must be more than a mere delay or indulgence at the request of the debtor. There must be an express agreement not to plead the statute, or such conduct on the part of the debtor as would make it inequitable for him to do so.
Id. (citations omitted).
Two years later in Winslow v. Carolina Conference Ass’n of The Seventh Day Adventists & Lumbermen’s Mutual Casualty Co., 211 N.C. 571, 191 S.E. 403 (1937), this Court put the condition precedent versus statute of limitations debate under N.C.G.S. § 97-24 to rest. The Court said:
After careful consideration of the question, which has not been heretofore decided by this Court, we are of the opinion and hold that the provisions of section 24 constitute a condition precedent to the right to compensation, and not a statute of limitation. For this reason, where a claim for compensation under the provisions of the North Carolina Workmen’s Act has not been filed with the Industrial Commission within one year after the date of the accident which resulted in the injury for which compensation is claimed, or where the Industrial Commission has not acquired jurisdiction of such claim within one year after the date of such accident (see Hardison v. Hampton, 203 N.C. 187, 165 S.E. 355), the right to compensation is barred.
Id. at 582, 191 S.E. at 410. This holding has not been overruled and has been consistently repeated in this Court’s opinions applying N.C.G.S. § 97-24. In McCrater v. Stone & Webster Engineering Corp., 248 N.C. 707, 104 S.E.2d 858 (1958), this Court, quoting from 34 Am. Jur., Limitation of Actions § 7, stated:
*46“A statute of limitations should be differentiated from conditions which are annexed to a right of action created by statute. A statute which in itself creates a new liability, gives an action to enforce it unknown to the common law, and fixes the time within which that action may be commenced, is not a statute of limitations. It is a statute of creation, and the commencement of the action within the time it fixes is an indispensable condition of the liability and of the action which it permits. The time element is an inherent element of the right so' created, and the limitation of the remedy is a limitation of the right.”
Id. at 709, 104 S.E.2d at 860. The Court then said:
And so it is, under application of the principles discussed and applied in Winslow v. Carolina Conference Association, supra and Lineberry v. Mebane, supra, that the plaintiffs inchoate right to compensation arose by operation of law on the date of the accident. But his substantive right to compensation was not fixed by the simple fact of injury arising out of and in the course of his employment. The requirement of filing claim within the time limited by G.S. 97-24 was a condition precedent to his right to compensation. Necessarily, then, the element of filing claim within the time limited by the statute was of the very essence of the plaintiffs right to recover compensation.
Id. As a condition precedent, application of the statute is not subject to avoidances available in the enforcement of an ordinary statute of limitation. See Wilson, 207 N.C. at 543, 177 S.E. at 798. By filing a claim with the Industrial Commission within the time prescribed by N.C.G.S. § 97-24, the injured worker invokes the jurisdiction of the' Industrial Commission.
If he wishes to claim compensation, he must notify his employer within thirty days after the accident, G.S. 97-22, 23, and if they cannot agree on compensation, he, or someone on his behalf, must file a claim with the Commission within twelve months [now twenty-four months] after the accident, in default of which his claim is barred. G.S. 97-24. Thus the jurisdiction of the Commission, as a judicial agency of the State, is invoked.
Biddix, 237 N.C. at 663, 75 S.E.2d at 780 (citations omitted). Filing of the claim is a condition precedent to jurisdiction of the Industrial Commission over the claim; thus, jurisdiction over the claim “cannot be obtained by consent of the parties, waiver, or estoppel.” Hart v. *47Thomasville Motors, Inc., 244 N.C. 84, 88, 92 S.E.2d 673, 676 (1956) (citations omitted). In the fifty-four years since the dictum in Biddix was published, this Court has never applied estoppel in the context of N.C.G.S. § 97-24. Admittedly, this Court has quoted the language from Biddix that estoppel is applicable in workers’ compensation cases, but in reference to another statute or another issue. See, e.g., Willis v. J.M. Davis Indus., 280 N.C. 709, 186 S.E.2d 913 (1972) (review of award based on changed conditions under N.C.G.S. § 97-47); Watkins v. Cent. Motor Lines, Inc., 279 N.C. 132, 181 S.E.2d 588 (1971) (same); Aldridge v. Foil Motor Co., 262 N.C. 248, 136 S.E.2d 591 (1964) (question of whether plaintiff employee was covered under the employer’s workers’ compensation insurance policy); and Ammons v. Z.A. Sneeden’s Sons, Inc., 257 N.C. 785, 127 S.E.2d 575 (1962) (change of conditions under N.C.G.S. § 97-47).
Moreover, the majority’s reliance on Belfield v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 77 N.C. App. 332, 335 S.E.2d 44 (1985), is, in my opinion, similarly misplaced. This Court is not bound by the decisions of the Court of Appeals. Contrary to the assertion in that opinion, (one in which I must share blame), the distinction between a condition precedent and a statute of limitations with respect to the application of the doctrine of estoppel to the filing requirement in N.C.G.S. § 97-24 had not resulted in judicial uncertainty, nor had this Court left the issue specifically unresolved. Id. at 334-35, 335 S.E.2d at 45-46. In Winslow, this Court’s opinion set out the Commission’s findings of fact and conclusions of law in full, 211 N.C. at 573-75,191 S.E. at 404-05, which clearly raised the issue and explained that if the filing requirement was a condition precedent, then estoppel would not apply, but if the filing requirement was a statute of limitations, estoppel would be applicable. The trial court in Winslow had similarly stated that if the filing requirement was a statute of limitations, the defendant would be estopped to attack the jurisdiction of the Industrial Commission. Id. at 581, 191 S.E. at 409. As noted above, this Court held that the filing requirement was a condition precedent. Id. at 582, 191 S.E. at 410. The question of whether estoppel could be applied to overcome the bar of a statute of limitations but not to overcome the failure to satisfy a condition precedent was settled law. 37 C.J. Limitations of Actions § 5, p. 686 (1925). The language from Hart that “[i]t is not necessary for us to decide whether under all circumstances a party to a proceeding before the Industrial Commission can, or cannot, be estopped to attack its jurisdiction over the subject matter, for the reason that under the facts of this case no such estoppel arises” did not leave unresolved the question of the application of estoppel in the *48context of N.C.G.S. § 97-24. Hart, 244 N.C. at 89, 92 S.E.2d at 677. The determinative jurisdictional issue in Hart was whether the injured party was an employee or an independent contractor, thereby bringing into question the Industrial Commission’s authority to approve the settlement agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant.
The fact that the Court of Appeals’ Belfield opinion has been published for twenty-two years and cited by the Industrial Commission is not, in my view, adequate reason for this Court to accept that decision and disregard our prior precedent that jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent of the parties, waiver, or estoppel. Id. at 88, 92 S.E.2d at 676, see also Morse v. Curtis, 276 N.C. 371, 375, 172 S.E.2d 495, 498 (1970). In my view equitable estoppel is not applicable in this case.
Finally, on the question of jurisdiction, the Court of Appeals’ majority in this case was, in my judgment, correct in its determination that plaintiff had, by sending the 26 November 2001 letter and Form 33 request for hearing, satisfied the filing requirement of N.C.G.S. § 97-24. Plaintiff testified that she mailed the letter and form in an envelope with proper postage addressed to the Industrial Commission. While the Commission made no finding on this point, the law is that evidence of the mailing of a letter, properly addressed and with proper postage, raises a rebuttable presumption that the letter was received by the intended recipient. Beard v. Southern Ry. Co., 143 N.C. 136, 140, 55 S.E. 505, 506 (1906). Defendant presented no evidence to refute plaintiff’s testimony on this point. Whether this letter and form were mailed is a jurisdictional fact. As this Court has said:
Findings of jurisdictional fact by the Industrial Commission . . . are not conclusive upon appeal even though supported by evidence in the record. A challenge to jurisdiction may be made at any time. When a defendant employer challenges the jurisdiction of the Industrial Commission, any reviewing court, including the Supreme Court, has the duty to make its own independent findings of jurisdictional facts from its consideration of the entire record.
Dowdy v. Fieldcrest Mills, Inc., 308 N.C. 701, 705, 304 S.E.2d 215, 218 (1983) (citations omitted). In her 26 November 2001 letter and on her Form 33, plaintiff stated that she is seeking benefits for the incident in March 2000, not the January 2000 accident. Of note, on the Form 33, plaintiff indicates that she had consulted an attorney. As of 26 *49November 2001, plaintiff was still within the two-year filing period for her claim arising out of the 12 January 2000 fall on the ice. Plaintiff having failed to file a claim for this incident within the required time period, the Industrial Commission did not have jurisdiction over the 12 January 2000 accident. The Industrial Commission did, however, have jurisdiction over plaintiffs claim for injuries arising out of the 31 March 2000 incident.
On the issue of causation, with respect to the 31 March 2000 incident, I am of the opinion that plaintiffs testimony that while pushing or moving a desk she experienced a catch in her back and that she consulted her doctor that day for back pain was sufficient to support a finding that she experienced a “specific traumatic incident” within the meaning of N.C.G.S. § 97-2(6). See, e.g., Moore v. Fed. Express, 162 N.C. App. 292, 294, 298, 590 S.E.2d 461, 463-64, 465-66 (2004) (loading a box into a vehicle); Whitfield v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 158 N.C. App. 341, 344, 352, 581 S.E.2d 778, 781, 785-86 (2003) (slipped on rainwater); Ruffin v. Compass Grp. USA, 150 N.C. App. 480, 481, 482-84, 563 S.E.2d 633, 635, 636-37 (2002) (pulled a forty-pound box of syrup out of truck); Beam v. Floyd’s Creek Baptist Church, 99 N.C. App. 767, 769, 394 S.E.2d 191, 192 (1990) (helped carry a heavy spotlight backwards up a flight of stairs); Kelly v. Carolina Components, 86 N.C. App. 73, 76-77, 356 S.E.2d 367, 369 (1987) (carried a door on head while climbing down a ladder); Bradley v. E.B. Sportswear, Inc., 77 N.C. App. 450, 451-52, 335 S.E.2d 52, 52-53 (1985) (“squatted down,” preparing to lift box off floor). Further, the testimony of her physicians, Drs. Hodgson and Melin, that experiencing such an incident could in their opinions, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, exacerbate and render her preexisting degenerative back condition symptomatic was sufficient to support a finding of a causal relationship between the work-related incident and her disabling back pain.
For the foregoing reasons I respectfully dissent in part and concur in part with the majority opinion.
Justice BRADY and Justice NEWBY join in this dissenting and concurring opinion.