Breaking News: Legislative Response to Wilkes v. City of Greenville
On June 29, 2017 the North Carolina General Assembly passed House Bill 26 which amends G.S. § 97-82(b) of the Workers’ Compensation Act. As previously discussed, Wilkes v. City of Greenville held that when a claim was accepted as compensable pursuant to a Form 60 or section 1 of a Form 63 that a rebuttable presumption was created that any additional medical treatment was related to the compensable condition. The rebuttable presumption was not limited to the specific body part or medical condition accepted in the Form 60 or 63. The overall impact of the legislature’s change is to limit the scope of any medical presumption. The legislation has been passed by the General Assembly and is now awaiting approval by Governor Cooper before it can become law.
Amendment to G.S. § 97-82(b)
The reformed G.S. § 97-82(b) expressly states that filing a Form 60 or 63 shall not create a presumption that medical treatment for an injury or condition not identified in the Form 60 or Form 63 is causally related to the compensable injury. The amendment applies to all accrued or pending claims. A claimant can request a full evidentiary hearing to prove that any additional injury or condition is causally related to the compensable injury.
Recommendations for Claim Acceptances and Denials
Filing a Form 60 or 63
Teague Campbell’s recommendation is that employers and carriers handling workers’ compensation claims be as specific as possible when describing exactly which injuries or conditions are being accepted as compensable on a Form 60 or 63. There will be a medical presumption created for any listed injuries or conditions, but no presumption created for injuries or conditions that are not specifically listed. In addition, employers and carriers can still use a Form 63, section 2, to pay for medical treatment, in medical only cases, without prejudice. We do not recommend adding language to the Form 60 or 63 in an attempt to modify or limit the IC forms because those modifications will likely not be accepted by the Commission and would have no practical effect.
Filing a Form 61
We do not recommend filing a generic Form 61 attempting to provide a universal denial of all claims not specifically listed on the Form 60 or 63. This is not necessary and could pose some unintended consequences for defendants. Although filing a Form 61 with a Form 60 or 63 is not necessary because no presumption is created for conditions not specifically accepted, there may be certain circumstances where filing a Form 61 for a denied condition might be appropriate. Please contact Teague Campbell with questions regarding filing a Form 61 in these situations.
Consideration of Other Issues Raised by Wilkes
As part of the negotiations amend G.S. § 97-82(b), representatives for both employees and industry have agreed to continue to discuss issues raised by Wilkes concerning how employees prove a disability during the remainder of the 2017-2018 legislative session. In addition, both sides have agreed to discuss the potential implications of Wilkes in medical only cases, including cases where medical benefits are paid without prejudice under Section 2 of a Form 63, and whether an expedited hearing process should be available to claimants seeking to prove that an additional condition or body part not listed on the Form 60 or 63 is related to the compensable injury.