Call us for a Free Consultation 704-377-3770

Our Cases

We have tried numerous cases before the appellate and trial courts in North Carolina, as well as before the Industrial Commission. As a result, our cases have clarified—and sometimes even changed—the law. We invite you to read the court decisions from our cases.

  • Mehaffey v. Burger King, 367 N.C. 120, 749 S.E.2d 252 (2013).

    Mehaffey held that individuals are not barred from receiving retroactive compensation for attendant care services they provide prior to obtaining approval for those services from the Industrial Commission.

  • Ruiz v. Belk Masonry, 148 N.C. App. 675, 559 S.E.2d 249 (2002).

    Ruiz announced that undocumented aliens are “employees” for purposes of receiving workers’ compensation benefits when they are injured at work. More specifically, Ruiz determined that the Federal Immigration Reform Control Act of 1986 did not preempt state-law definitions of the word “employee” for workers’ compensation purposes, which would have precluded undocumented aliens from receiving compensation despite their injuries. The case also dealt with compensating family members for providing attendant care to injured workers.

  • London v. Snak-Time Catering, 136 N.C. App. 473, 525 S.E.2d 203 (2000).

    London held that insurance carriers had to reimburse an injured employee’s family members for attendant care services, or medically necessary and unskilled nursing services, provided when an insurance carrier did not provide those services.

  • Meares v. Dana Corp./ Wixx Division, 172 N.C. App. 291, 615 S.E.2d 912 (2005).

    Meares held that an insurance carrier could not set off its liability for workers’ compensation by the amounts paid to the injured employee under a severance package.

  • Kee v. Caromont Health, Inc., 209 N.C. App. 193, 706 S.E.2d 781 (2011).

    Kee held that "side agreements" might not be appropriate in some workers' compensation settlements under the Industrial Commission's rules, and it upheld the Commission's decision to void a mediated settlement agreement due to the existence of a "side agreement."