Dixon v. City of Durham,“suitable work” physical restrictions by Raleigh workers compensation attorney Travis Payne job injury lawyer Steven Edelstein

Business entrance white paint Edelstein & Payne workers compensation attorneys

www.edelsteinpayne.com

Dixon v. City of Durham, 128 N.C. App. 501, 495 S.E.2d 380, disc. rev. den., 348 N.C. 496, 510 S.E.2d 381 (1998)

Workers' Compensation.
Court of appeals ruled that injured worker's refusal of an offered job was justified.
Recognized that “suitable work” for purposes of an injured worker receiving workers' compensation is work that not only meets the physical restrictions of the worker, but that also allows the worker comparable wage earning opportunities to those that they had before the injury.
(This was before the recent "reforms" by North Carolina's right-wing legislature, that drastically changed the workers' comp environment in favor of companies and management and against workers.)

-- 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Does North Carolina Law state all job injuries are accidents? NC Law states not all job injuries are accidents: Here's an Example of an Injury not caused by an "Accident" Call a Workers Comp lawyer prior to speaking with an Insurance Representative or filling out a Report

Whitfield v. Laboratory Corporation of America (Originially published 6-17-2003) Raleigh Workers compensation lawyer Travis Payne Job injury attorney Steven Edelstein

Pulley v. City of Wilson, 674 SE 2d 478 Edelstein Payne workers compensation attorney job injury attorney Free Case reviews