Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contractappealtrialworkers' compensationsustained
plaintiffdefendanttrialsustained

Related Cases

Farquhar v. New Orleans Saints, 16 So.3d 404, 08-800 (La.App. 5 Cir. 5/26/09)
View Case »
Hanson v. Kynast, 24 Ohio St.3d 171, 494 N.E.2d 1091, 33 Ed. Law Rep. 455, 24 O.B.R. 403
View Case »
Christian v. Eagles Landing Christian Academy, Inc., 303 Ga.App. 113, 692 S.E.2d 745, 256 Ed. Law Rep. 934, 10 FCDR 1080
View Case »
Hackbart v. Cincinnati Bengals, Inc., 601 F.2d 516, 4 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1042
View Case »
Doe v. United States Youth Soccer Assn., Inc., 8 Cal.App.5th 1118, 214 Cal.Rptr.3d 552, 17 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1666, 2017 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1641
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Smith v. Richardson Sports Ltd. I.C. Partners, 172 N.C.App. 200, 616 S.E.2d 245

Facts

The claimant, a professional football player, sustained a knee injury during a game on September 17, 2000, which led to the termination of his employment contract with the Carolina Panthers. Following the injury, the claimant filed for workers' compensation benefits. A deputy commissioner awarded him 300 weeks of compensation at a rate of $588 per week, while the employer was granted a 14-week credit for post-injury payments. The employer appealed the decision, seeking a greater credit for various payments made to the claimant post-injury.

Plaintiff sustained a compensable injury by accident and developed compensable occupational disease(s) as a result of an admittedly compensable event arising out of and in the course of his employment with defendants on September 17, 2000.

Issue

Whether the employer was entitled to a greater credit against workers' compensation benefits for post-injury payments made to the claimant.

Whether the North Carolina Industrial Commission erred in (I) only allowing defendants a fourteen-week credit for approximately six million dollars in post-injury payments to plaintiff and not allowing a dollar-for-dollar credit for the total amount paid to plaintiff post-injury.

Rule

Analysis

The court analyzed whether the payments made by the employer to the claimant post-injury were due and payable. It found that several payments, including a $47,059 salary payment and a $1,000,000 roster bonus, were due and payable at the time they were made, thus disqualifying them from being credited against the workers' compensation benefits. The court also noted that the employer's entitlement to credits is limited to payments made during the weeks when compensation was due.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the Industrial Commission's decision in part, denying the employer's request for additional credits for certain post-injury payments, while remanding the case for further determination on other payments.

We affirm the opinion and award in part and remand this case to the Commission for the reasons stated herein.

Who won?

The claimant prevailed in this case as the court upheld the Industrial Commission's decision to award him 300 weeks of compensation without granting the employer the additional credits it sought. The court's reasoning emphasized that many of the payments made by the employer were deemed due and payable, thus not eligible for credit against the workers' compensation benefits.

The Commission concluded that plaintiff sustained a compensable injury by accident and developed compensable occupational disease(s) as a result of an admittedly compensable event arising out of and in the course of his employment with defendants on September 17, 2000.

You must be