On April 6, 2017, the North Carolina Workers’ Compensation Opioid Task Force held its first organizational meeting to study and recommend solutions for the problems arising from the intersection of the opioid epidemic and related issues in Worker’s Compensation claims.…
With a combined 295 years of experience in workers’ compensation,
our team can provide the resolution that is right for you.
We represent private and public sector employers, government entities, insurance carriers and third-party administrators in all aspects of a workers’ compensation claim. Our goal is to provide practical and proactive legal advice; diligently manage accepted claims to reduce liability; employ results-oriented negotiation skills to promptly resolve contested cases, minimize defense costs and achieve finality; and, in those cases which cannot be resolved by compromise settlement, aggressively and effectively defend our clients before the Industrial Commission and in our appellate courts.
We believe in being responsive and providing guidance as a trusted advisor. Our workers’ compensation team can handle any issue that may arise in the workers’ compensation realm and always seek the best resolution for our clients, whether that requires litigation or a quick resolution. We offer a wide variety of continuing education courses and are regularly asked to present for industry events, membership organizations and law schools.
Teague Campbell attorneys have assisted in negotiating and drafting legislative changes to the Workers’ Compensation Act and bring that depth of knowledge to each client and every claim. We have been involved in over 180 workers’ compensation decisions before the North Carolina Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court and are the only North Carolina firm in the National Workers’ Compensation Defense Network. Our workers’ compensation attorneys are also consistently recognized by their peers in North Carolina Super Lawyers and The Best Lawyers in America©, with two current and one former partner receiving Lawyer of the Year designation.
Clients trust our unmatched experience – a combined total of 295 years to be exact.
Matters referenced are for illustrative purposes only. They do not represent the firm’s entire record and past successes are not a guarantee of any future result or outcome.
Successfully defended case at the North Carolina Supreme Court, with the Court ultimately finding that the plaintiff’s fall off of the roof of a building owned by the defendant auto dealership did not arise out of or in the course of the plaintiff’s employment with the auto dealership.
Successfully defended Moore County from nine alleged occupational disease “sick building” cases. The Court of Appeals affirmed the finding from the Full Commission at the plaintiffs failed to prove not only exposure, but any compensable consequences as a result of the alleged exposure.
Successfully argued that the filing of a Form 60 does not create a presumption of disability. This was a case of first impression following the workers compensation Reform Act of 1993 and 1994 establishing direct pay of indemnity benefits and is the leading case establishing the distinction between a Form 21 agreement and a Form 60.
Successfully argued to the North Carolina Supreme Court that a defendant carrier should be fully reimbursed for the workers compensation lien pursuant to G. S. 97-10.2. The case established that since the third-party judgment exceeded the amount of the workers compensation lien, the workers compensation carrier was entitled to a full recovery.
Successfully argued to the North Carolina Supreme Court that the defendants rebutted any type of presumption of disability pursuant to a Form 21 agreement when the plaintiff is released to full duty employment.
Successfully argued to the North Carolina Supreme Court that the defendants had demonstrated that plaintiff was no longer disabled and not entitled to ongoing TTD benefits despite having permanent work restrictions given that he was capable of returning to work in some capacity.
The leading case in North Carolina establishing the guidelines required for a plaintiff to establish disability pursuant to the North Carolina Worker’s Compensation act.
Leading case establishing criteria for carrier’s responsibility for housing for a catastrophically injured plaintiff.
Court of Appeals decision establishing that the Industrial Commission should look to a plaintiffs profit and loss statement when calculating an average weekly wage for a sole proprietor.
Leading case in North Carolina establishing the burden of proof for a plaintiff to prove disability in a workers compensation claim. Namely, that the plaintiff was incapable after his injury of earning the same wages earned before his injury in the same employment, that plaintiff was incapable after his injury of earning the same wages earned before his injury or any other employment, and that this individuals incapacity to earn wages was caused by the work-related injury. The plaintiff has the burden of proving both the existence of his disability and the degree of disability.
Successfully defended a case establishing apportionment of a plaintiffs total disability based upon only a portion (55%) of the claimant’s total incapacity for work being causally related to the compensable occupational disease, thereby reducing the plaintiff’s indemnity benefits by 45%.
North Carolina: Patillo v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company: Another Review of the Parsons Presumption and Reasonableness of a Job Search
Last winter we examined the Court of Appeals decision in Wilkes v. City of Greenville and its seemingly a radical extension of the Parsons presumption to injuries not initially accepted as part of the claim. The decision Wilkes was appealed…
North Carolina Court of Appeals Determines Parsons Presumption Applies to New Injury to Accepted Body Part
On May 12, 2007, Plaintiff was working as a tire builder for Defendant-Employer, and sustained injury to her right shoulder. Defendants accepted the right shoulder as compensable. Plaintiff underwent surgery and returned to work. Plaintiff sustained a number of exacerbations…
Shawn Patillo suffered a low back injury on February 16, 2011 while working as a press operator for Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. (“Goodyear”). He was evaluated at the on-site medical clinic and was restricted to “off-standard” work, which meant…
Kelly Lewis worked as a bus operator for Transit Management of Charlotte (“Charlotte Transit”). He suffered an admittedly compensable back injury on June 15, 2009 when the bus he was driving was rear-ended. A Form 25R was completed wherein Mr.…
Under the SMART Act, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is required to set minimum Section 111 mandatory reporting thresholds for liability claims, as well as establish a “safe harbor” regarding conditional payment reimbursements. For liability claims, this…
If employers or carriers have a statute of limitation defense, this defense should be identified early and analyzed as a potential basis for denying the claim.