Adams v. Metals USA

58 Citing cases

  1. Ferguson v. Enterprises

    749 S.E.2d 111 (N.C. Ct. App. 2013)

    “The claimant in a workers' compensation case bears the burden of initially proving each and every element of compensability, including a causal relationship between the injury and his employment.” Adams v. Metals USA, 168 N.C.App. 469, 475, 608 S.E.2d 357, 361 (2005) (quotation marks and citations omitted). “An injury is compensable as employment-related if any reasonable relationship to employment exists.

  2. Sides v. Ashley Furniture Indus., Inc.

    No. COA18-588 (N.C. Ct. App. Dec. 18, 2018)

    In a workers' compensation case, the claimant "bears the burden of initially proving each and every element of compensability, including a causal relationship between the injury and his employment." Adams v. Metals USA, 168 N.C. App. 469, 475, 608 S.E.2d 357, 361, aff'd, 360 N.C. 54, 619 S.E.2d 495 (2005) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Causation must be proven "by a greater weight of the evidence or a preponderance of the evidence."

  3. Cantrell v. Diebold, Inc.

    709 S.E.2d 602 (N.C. Ct. App. 2011)

    A If it is corroborated, yes. Dr. Lyerly's testimony is similar to testimony found sufficient to show causation in Adams v. Metals USA, 168 N.C. App. 469, 476, 608 S.E.2d 357, 362 ("It is permissible, but not compulsory for a fact-finder to infer causation where a medical expert offers a qualified opinion as to causation, along with an accepted medical explanation as to how such a condition occurs, and where there is additional evidence tending to establish a causal nexus."), aff'd per curiam, 360 N.C. 54, 619 S.E.2d 495 (2005).

  4. Castaneda v. International Leg Wear Group

    668 S.E.2d 909 (N.C. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 2 times

    Although Dr. Maxy admitted that “ you can't tell for sure" what the cause of the annular tear was, this qualifying language goes towards the weight of his testimony and does not rise to the level of “ guess" or “ speculation" as the doctor's testimony in Holley.SeeAdams v. Metals USA, 168 N.C.App. 469, 483, 608 S.E.2d 357, 365 (2005), aff'd per curiam, 360 N.C. 54, 619 S.E.2d 495 (2005) (“ The fact that the treating physician in the case could not state with reasonable medical certainty that plaintiff's accident caused his disability, is not dispositive-the degree of the doctor's certainty goes to the weight of his testimony." ).

  5. Miller v. Auria Sols.

    2022 NCCOA 361 (N.C. Ct. App. 2022)

    S.E.2d 830, 835 (1980), and "it is not within this Court's authority to reweigh the evidence and credibility of the witnesses," Penegar v. United Parcel Serv., 259 N.C.App. 308, 318, 815 S.E.2d 391, 398 (2018). In other words, "[t]he decision concerning what weight to give expert evidence is a duty for the Commission and not this Court." Adams v. Metals USA, 168 N.C.App. 469, 483, 608 S.E.2d 357, 365-66 (2005) (citation omitted). Put simply, "[t]he findings of fact of the Industrial Commission are conclusive on appeal when supported by competent evidence even though there is evidence to support contrary findings."

  6. Pine v. Wal-Mart Assocs., Inc.

    255 N.C. App. 321 (N.C. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 2 times

    "Plaintiff must prove causation by a greater weight of the evidence or a preponderance of the evidence." Adams v. Metals USA , 168 N.C.App. 469, 475, 608 S.E.2d 357, 361 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted), aff'd , 360 N.C. 54, 619 S.E.2d 495 (2005). The majority's opinion asserts the Commission's error in applying the Parsons and Wilkes standard "does not require reversal because the Commission made adequate findings that Plaintiff met her burden of proving causation without the presumption."

  7. Sellers v. McArthur Supply

    734 S.E.2d 140 (N.C. Ct. App. 2012)

    “In reviewing a workers' compensation claim, our Court does not have the right to weigh the evidence and decide the issue on the basis of weight.” Adams v. Metals USA, 168 N.C.App. 469, 474–75, 608 S.E.2d 357, 361,aff'd,360 N.C. 54, 619 S.E.2d 495 (2005) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted). “If supported by competent evidence, the Commission's findings are binding on appeal even when there exists evidence to support findings to the contrary.”

  8. Moore v. Hoechst Celanese Corp.

    I.C. NOS. 792279 865240 (N.C. Ind. Comn. Jun. 1, 2010)

    "An expert witness' testimony is insufficient to establish causation where the expert witness is unable to express an opinion to `any degree of medical certainty' as to the cause of an illness." Adams v. Metals USA, 168 N.C.App. 469, 476, 608 S.E.2d 357, 362 (2005) (citing Young v. Hickory Bus. Furn., 353 N.C. 227, 233, 538 S.E.2d 912, 916 (2000)). In Young, the North Carolina Supreme Court held that the employee did not prove that her fibromyalgia was work-related because her doctor could not "express an opinion to any degree of medical certainty as to the cause" of the employee's injury. 353 N.C. at 233, 538 S.E.2d at 916-17.

  9. Hamilton v. LMS Intellibound, Inc.

    I.C. NO. 665694 (N.C. Ind. Comn. Mar. 1, 2009)

    The Full Commission has given greater weight herein to Dr. Habashi's testimony, and has found it to be persuasive. It is well established in North Carolina that the Full Commission can give more weight to the testimony of a particular physician or other health care provider over others. Adams v. Metals USA, 168 N.C. App. 469, 608 S.E.2d 357, affirmed per curiam, 360 N.C. 54, 619 S.E.2d 495 (2005); Adams v. AVX Corp., 349 N.C. 676, 509 S.E.2d 411 (1998). 3.

  10. Lynch v. Crane

    I.C. NO. 533424 (N.C. Ind. Comn. Nov. 1, 2008)   Cited 1 times

    The degree of an expert's certainty goes to the weight of their testimony, which is the duty of the Industrial Commission to determine. Adams v. Metals USA, 168 N.C. App. 469, 483, 608 S.E.2d 357, 365, aff'd per curiam, 360 N.C. 54, 619 S.E.2d 495 (2005). If an expert is unable to state with certainty that there is a nexus between an event and an injury, their testimony relating the two is at least some evidence of causation, if there is additional evidence which establishes that the expert's testimony is more than conjecture. Booker-Douglas v. JS Truck Serv., Inc., 178 N.C. App. 174, 630 S.E.2d 726 (2006); Adams, 168 N.C. App. 469, 608 S.E.2d 357, aff'd per curiam, 360 N.C. 54, 619 S.E.2d 495 (2005).