Court Opinion

ID: 9848867
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:28:54.789991+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:50.601662
License: Public Domain

Judge Gkeene
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I do not agree Beam’s workers’ compensation lien attached to plaintiff’s settlement proceeds from Travelers.
This case presents for the first time the issue of whether a workers’ compensation carrier/employer is entitled to a lien on the employee/plaintiff’s personal injury proceeds received from a UIM carrier, when the UIM carrier has been given a credit in the amount of the payments made by the workers’ compensation carrier/employer to the insured/employee. Our Supreme Court has held a UIM carrier is entitled to reduce its UIM coverage to its insured by the amount of workers’ compensation the insured/employee has already received. McMillian v. N.C. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 347 N.C. 560, 565, 495 S.E.2d 352, 354-55 (1998). In so holding, the McMillian court overruled this Court’s holding in Ohio Casualty Group v. Owens, 99 N.C. App. 131, 392 S.E.2d 647 (1990) that the UIM carrier was not entitled to a credit for the workers’ compensation payments made to the insured/employee. McMillan, 347 N.C. at 565, 495 S.E.2d at 355. The McMillian court did not address the question of whether the workers’ compensation carrier/employer was also entitled to a lien on the UIM proceeds received by the insured/employee. Accordingly, left undis*245turbed was that portion of the Ohio Casualty opinion that the workers’ compensation carrier/employer was entitled to a lien on the UIM proceeds received by the insured/employee. Ohio Casualty, 99 N.C. App. at 137, 392 S.E.2d at 651.
Beam, plaintiffs employer in this case, argues and the majority agrees McMillian and Ohio Casualty, when read together, hold the UIM carrier is entitled to a credit for workers’ compensation payments made and the workers’ compensation carrier/employer is entitled to a lien on the proceeds received by the insured/employee. I disagree.
That portion of the Ohio Casualty opinion relating to the workers’ compensation lien must be read in the context of its holding that the UIM carrier was not entitled to a credit for payments made by the workers’ compensation carrier/employer.4 To allow both a credit to the UIM carrier and a lien to the workers’ compensation carrier/employer would penalize the insured/employee and thus deny him the full compensation for his injuries to which he is entitled under the law.5 Therefore, McMillian must be read, in the context of a case where the UIM carrier has previously been given a credit for the workers’ compensation payments, to overrule that portion of Ohio Casualty providing for a workers’ compensation lien on the UIM proceeds received by the insured/employee.6 Accordingly, because Travelers received a credit for the workers’ compensation payments made by Beam in its payment to plaintiff, Beam was not *246entitled to a lien on the proceeds received by plaintiff from Travelers.7
As I fully concur with the majority on the other issues addressed in its opinion, I would affirm the order of the trial court in all respects.

. The rationale for the Ohio Casualty holding is to prevent the insured/employee from recovering twice for the same injury: once from the workers’ compensation carrier and once from the UIM carrier. 99 N.C. App. at 137, 392 S.E.2d at 651.

. For example: employee is injured in the course and scope of his employment by a non-employee underinsured tortfeasor. Employee collects $100,000.00 from his workers’ compensation carrier/employer and obtains a $300,000.00 judgment against his UIM carrier. If we allow both the UIM credit and the workers’ compensation lien, the insured/employee receives a net of $200,000.00. Utilizing these principles, employee would be better served to refuse any workers’ compensation benefits and pursue the UIM carrier, thus, netting him a total of $300,000.00.

. Even if McMillian cannot be read in this manner, so as to contravene the workers’ compensation lien provided for in section 97-10.2(f)(l)c, the trial court in its discretion may choose to eliminate the hen when the UIM carrier has been given credit for the workers’ compensation payments. N.C.G.S. § 97-10.2Q) (1999). I disagree with the conclusion of the majority that the trial court’s decision to waive the lien must include any findings of fact beyond the finding that the UIM carrier had been given a credit for the workers’ compensation payments. Thus, as an alternative basis, I would affirm the trial court’s alternative basis for its decision to eliminate Beam’s workers’ compensation hen.

. I reject the suggestion of the majority that plaintiff somehow waived his right to argue Beam is not entitled to a lien because he agreed, in settlement, to reduce the arbitration award by the amount of the workers’ compensation payments. At the time of this settlement, our case law was unequivocal in holding the UIM carrier, Travelers, was entitled to a credit for any workers’ compensation benefits paid to the insured/employee. Plaintiff, thus, acted in accordance with the well-settled law and cannot now be penalized for that action.