A common question that we encounter as seasoned Asheville personal injury lawyers is whether a particular injury accident can be brought forward as a civil claim or whether it must be addressed through North Carolina’s workers’ compensation system. Under the exclusivity rule, if an injury happens during the course and scope of employment, it must be treated as a work injury. This means that the injured worker is barred from bringing a civil claim against his or her employer except in a few very limited scenarios. If you were injured and have questions about the best way to go about receiving the compensation that you need and deserve, we are standing by to assist you.

A recent case discussed the difference between bringing a civil injury claim and a worker’s compensation claim. The plaintiff originally filed a civil claim for negligence against his employer stating that the company nurse diagnosed him in a negligent manner after he suffered a stroke at work. Before filing this action, the plaintiff had also filed a claim with the North Carolina workers’ compensation commission based on the same scenario. The judge in the workers’ compensation claim denied his request for benefits and medical expenses reimbursements on the basis that the injury did not take place at work and did not arise out of the course and scope of his employment. The plaintiff did not file an appeal.

In the civil claim, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss on the basis that the facts giving rise to the claim were related to his occupation and therefore should be asserted as a workers’ compensation claim. The lower court denied this motion on the basis that there was no relation between the injury that the plaintiff pled in his complaint and his occupation. The defendants appealed.

Continue reading

Motor vehicle accidents are always devastating, but when a drunk driver is to blame the injury can seem even more difficult to accept. There are certain laws that provide ways to hold restaurants, bars, and other establishments that serve alcohol responsible if they overserve someone who leaves the premises and causes an injury accident. These are known as dram shop laws. As seasoned Charlotte drunk driving car accident lawyers, we are ready to help you fight for the compensation that you and your family deserve during this stressful and painful time.

The North Carolina Court of Appeal recently handled a case involving allegations based on dram shop liability. The defendant in the case owned a series of restaurants franchised in different counties throughout North Carolina. The owner disseminated information on how to identify intoxication and prevent it. The co-defendant in the case was a regular customer at one of the locations and between six to seven hours he was served between roughly 13 to 15 alcoholic beverages. Most of the drinks came from one server who’s shift ended before the customer left. The server who replaced her eventually cut off the second defendant from ordering more drinks. The second server ordered food for the customer to eat, which he did.

The customer then left the premises and caused an injury accident on Interstate 26. The plaintiff filed a suit against the restaurant and the customer seeking compensation for his injuries. He also alleged that the restaurant was negligent in supervising its employees, the two servers who provided alcoholic beverages to the customer. The restaurant moved to dismiss the dram shop claim and negligent supervision claim. The court granted dismissal of the negligent supervision claim, but the dram shop claim went to the jury. The court concluded that the plaintiff did not provide enough evidence to show that the servers were incompetent and that the cause of action was duplicative of the dram shop act.

Continue reading

When it comes to accidents that are due to another person’s negligence, slip and fall cases are one of the most common ways that Charlotte residents can find themselves experiencing serious harm and inconvenience in their lives. The rules regarding premises liability injuries are somewhat complicated, which is why it is important to have a diligent Charlotte personal injury attorney to assist you with all phases of your claim including ensuring that you receive the full amount of compensation that you are owed.

In a recent claim, the plaintiff appealed an order granting summary judgment for the defendant property owner. The plaintiff sued the property owner after reportedly tripping on a crate of tomatoes that was allegedly protruding into the shopping aisle, according to the plaintiff’s complaint. The defendant based its motion for summary judgment on the theory that the danger was open and obvious and that the defendant is not liable under premises liability law for open and obvious dangers.

A negligence claim requires the plaintiff to show that the defendant owed him or her a duty, failed to exercise appropriate care according to that duty and that the breach was the direct and foreseeable cause of any injuries that the plaintiff sustained. Under North Carolina law, a property owner owes all lawful visitors a duty to act with reasonable care. When it comes to a business owner, that duty requires the owner to ensure that the premises is reasonably safe and to provide warnings about any hidden dangers or unsafe conditions that are capable of being identified during a reasonable inspection.

Continue reading

The North Carolina workers’ compensation system is meant to provide compensation for workers who are injured during the course and scope of employment. This can create some legal issues when it comes to determining whether an injury was work-related or not. If the injury happened in the course and scope of employment, then the worker’s sole remedy for compensation is through the workers’ compensation claims process and not in civil court. If you have been injured and believe that it may be related to your employment or have questions about your right to compensation, contact a seasoned Charlotte workers’ compensation lawyer immediately.

In a recent claim, the plaintiff appealed from a dismissal of her complaint against her employer, asserting a claim for negligence. The lower court determined that the events giving rise to her claim happened in the course and scope of employment and that as a result, the workers’ compensation system was her sole remedy. In the case, the plaintiff suffered from a mental illness and had been out of work for some time. She eventually began work for the employer, a bank. Shortly after receiving a promotion at the bank, the mental illness resurfaced. The bank put the plaintiff on short-term disability as a result of her condition and inability to perform her duties.

The plaintiff eventually returned to work on a limited schedule but was unable to perform the duties that her employer expected. She asked to be transferred, but the request was denied, and her doctor eventually took her out of work and diagnosed her as bipolar.

Continue reading

Drug-related medical emergencies can be stressful situations for everyone involved including first responders. When a first responder fails to follow proper procedures or to take reasonable cautions to ensure that someone who is under the influence receives necessary medical attention, the outcome can be disastrous or even fatal. As seasoned Asheville personal injury lawyers, we have handled numerous cases involving fatalities that result from another person’s negligence. We are standing by and ready to assist you with seeking the compensation that you deserve.

In a recent appellate decision, the court considered whether a trial court properly granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss a complaint alleging negligence and wrongful death against a local sheriff’s office regarding the death of an individual who had taken several prescription pills. The decedent was found slumped over the steering wheel of his car. A 911 call alerted the sheriff’s office and a deputy and EMS responded to the scene. One of the deputies who arrived canceled the EMS call. The decedent asked the deputy to call one of his friends to pick him up. The friend took the decedent home and put him to bed. He was found deceased in the morning.

The decedent’s estate filed a claim alleging that the Sheriff was negligent in failing to establish appropriate procedures for dealing with drug-related medical emergencies, for not allowing paramedics to respond to the scene, for failing to call for further medical assistance, and for calling a friend instead of someone related by marriage or blood. The complaint also alleged that the office was negligent for not training officers on responding to situations involving substances and for a variety of other allegedly negligent acts based on the public duty doctrine.

Continue reading

As seasoned Charlotte personal injury lawyers, we have seen how some of the most painful and damaging injuries can happen in sudden accidents that no one would have anticiapted. Regardless of the reasons behind the accident, if you are the victim of someone else’s negligence you may be entitled to compensation in a personal injury lawsuit for your medical bills, lost wages, and pain and suffering. Contact Maurer Law today to learn more about how we may be able to assist you.

In a recent lawsuit, the North Carolina Court of Appeal considered a claim in which a person reportedly died as the result of an accident involving a four-wheeler that was used at a high school football team practice location. The plaintiffs in the action sued the school for negligent infliction of emotional distress claiming that it was foreseeable as a result of the defendant’s allegedly negligent conduct that they would suffer emotional distress at witnessing their teammate and friend die.

The high school team had access to the vehicle and used it routinely to move items during and after practice. All players were authorized to use the vehicle even though they were minors and despite the fact that many of them were not given appropriate safety and operation training for the device.

Continue reading

If you are hurt on the job, you may suffer a temporary injury that allows you to still perform some tasks. In this situation, the employer may be required to offer you a position that fits your disability. Determining the tasks that you can safely perform, however, can be difficult. In some instances, the employer may not offer an appropriate job and may argue that your refusal to take the job is a refusal that warrants revoking your benefits. As dedicated Charlotte work injury lawyers we are ready to help you fight for the treatment that you deserve.

In a recent case, the employee allegedly hurt himself at work when he slipped and fell. He sought medical treatment, which his employer paid for through its insurance carrier. He underwent additional treatment with no improvement, eventually requiring surgery. Several months later, the worker was designated as having reached maximum medical improvement with certain limitations including permanent work restrictions on what he could lift. During the following weeks, the plaintiff continued to complain of pain.

The worker eventually suggested that his truck driver position was beyond the scope of his work limitations, so the employer provided him with a position as part of the loading crew and assured him that it would not conflict with the lifting restrictions. The description, however, said that the worker must be required to lift 50 pounds on occasion, use his or her hands and wrists, and grasp objects repetitively. The worker attempted to perform these tasks, but experienced pain quickly.

Continue reading

Losing a child is perhaps the most horrific thing that a parent can experience, particularly if it happens as the result of another person’s carelessness. Although no amount of money can truly repair the damage and pain that your family has experienced as a result of the sudden loss, it can help you cope with the financial burden associated with the loss. As seasoned Charlotte personal injury lawyers handling wrongful death cases, we are prepared to help you determine whether your family is entitled to compensation from the person who caused your child’s death.

Recently, the North Carolina Court of Appeal considered a case in which the plaintiffs left the minor child in the care of the defendants, who ran an unlicensed childcare facility in their home. They regularly cared for the plaintiffs’ child. On one occasion, the defendants reportedly had a loaded 12-gauge shotgun on the kitchen table that the children were able to access. One of the defendants had not completed a firearms safety course. One of the defendants’ children discharged the shotgun in the direction of the plaintiffs’ child, resulting in her death.

The plaintiffs filed a wrongful death claim and included claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The plaintiff’s father heard about the shooting over a CB radio and saw the ambulance pass him, knowing that his daughter was inside. He followed the ambulance to the hospital and saw his daughter being unloaded. He was told at that time that his child died in the ambulance. The mother of the child taught at a school nearby and immediately came to the hospital where she held her daughter’s lifeless body until she was required to leave.

Continue reading

As Asheville car accident lawyers, we often handle cases involving complex insurance policies and questions about whether coverage will be provided for an accident. If you have severe injuries following a crash that wasn’t your fault, you probably also have severe medical expenses, lost wages, and other expenses associated with the accident. In addition to helping you assert your right to compensation from the driver who injured you, we are prepared to help you ensure that insurance companies treat you and your family fairly during this challenging time.

A recent case from the North Carolina Court of Appeal highlights some of the key aspects of knowing your rights in an insurance policy dispute. The plaintiff in the case filed a declaratory judgment action to determine the extent of the plaintiff’s liability to the defendant for an automobile accident in which the defendant was injured and his wife was killed. The decedent had an insurance policy that provided underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage in the amount of $100,000 per person or $300,000 per accident. The other driver involved in the accident had an insurance policy providing coverage of $50,000 per person and $100,000 per accident.

The other driver’s insurer tendered the full policy limits of $100,000 per accident divided among the four parties in the accident. The decedent’s insurer paid the surviving husband $68,000, which represented the $100,000 policy limit minus the amount he received from the other driver’s insurer. It also paid a sum to the decedent’s estate. The surviving husband argued in court that he was entitled to receive UIM policy limits. The husband ultimately won this argument and the insurer appealed.

Continue reading

If you rent an apartment or house, you place your trust in the property owner that he or she has conducted proper inspections and ensured that the premises is free from dangerous conditions like mold. Certain types of mold can pose a serious threat to you and your family’s health and unfortunately, mold can grow in the walls or under floorboards where it is impossible to detect without high tech equipment. If you were exposed to mold or another dangerous condition as the result of a landowner’s neglect you may be entitled to compensation. Call our Charlotte premises liability lawyers today to learn more about how we can assist you.

Recently, the North Carolina Court of Appeal reviewed a case in which the plaintiff alleged that the owners of a property that he rented failed to keep it suitable for habitation according to N.C. Gen. Stat Section 42-42. According to this provision, landlords must comply with several requirements regarding the maintenance and habitability of rental properties, including keeping common areas in a safe condition, ensuring that electrical, plumbing, sanitary, heating, ventilation, air conditioning, and other facilities are in good working order, and providing smoke alarms.

He also alleged that the defendant’s failure to inspect or maintain the premises was negligent and reckless conduct and that the owner made negligent misrepresentations about the property’s condition.

Continue reading

Contact Information