Late last year, the Court of Appeals reinforced a key principle of the NC Workers’ Compensation Act: an injured worker must prove they are disabled. Not just from the pre-injury job, but from any job. At its core, Hall v. Jones COA25-59 (2025) underscores a fundamental rule: the plaintiff carries the burden of proof. In an unpublished opinion, the Court affirmed in part, vacated in part and remanded the case back to the Industrial Commission for further findings of fact. The central question in the case was whether the Full Commission improperly shifted the burden to Defendants to show that Plaintiff was disabled from all employment. The Court of Appeals concluded that the Commission did not address whether Plaintiff had proven that he was incapable of earning wages in employment outside of the Defendant-Employer, and as a result, remanded the case back for additional findings of fact on that issue.

By way of background, the Plaintiff was injured while working for a facilities management company. After being assessed at maximum medical improvement (MMI) and assigned a 25% permanent partial impairment (PPI) rating, Plaintiff returned to his pre-injury engineering job with some modifications. Plaintiff alleged that even with the modifications, the job was outside his restrictions and was not available in the competitive marketplace, making the job “unsuitable.”

The Full Commission and the Court of Appeals agreed with Plaintiff, concluding that the job with the employer exceeded Plaintiff’s restrictions and that Defendants failed to show that the job was available in the competitive marketplace. The Commission then stated Plaintiff was allowed to quit the unsuitable job and collect TTD until suitable employment was found, which assumes Plaintiff prevailed in showing disability. Importantly, there were minimal to no findings that Plaintiff searched for or was unable to find work elsewhere within his permanent restrictions.

The Court first noted that disability as defined under the Workers’ Compensation Act is “the incapacity because of injury to earn the wages which the employee was receiving at the time of injury in the same or any other employment.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-2. Only after Plaintiff shows they are disabled does the burden shift to Defendants to establish that suitable employment is available. Johnson v. S. Tire Sales & Serv., 358 N.C. 701, 708 (2004).

Referencing the Hilliard elements, the Court stated that while the Full Commission correctly found Plaintiff was unable to earn wages in the “same” employment, it failed to answer whether Plaintiff could earn wages in “any other employment”. Hilliard v. Apex Cabinet Co., 305 N.C. 593 (1982). In other words, Plaintiffs cannot prevail in showing disability by merely alleging the original job is outside their permanent restrictions and thus unsuitable. They must also provide evidence that they have searched for other jobs but have not been able to locate one after a reasonable job search.

The Court’s opinion reiterates that Plaintiffs have the burden of proving disability under the Workers’ Compensation Act and conducting a reasonable job search is part of the analysis before disability benefits can be awarded.

Hall v. Jones Lang LaSalle, Inc. (COA25-59) is a useful example of how North Carolina appellate courts strictly enforce the statutory definition of disability under workers’ compensation law. The decision underscores that Industrial Commission awards must explicitly establish an injured worker’s reduced wage-earning capacity across all employment, not just with the original employer, before awarding disability benefits.

Issues surrounding suitable employment and ongoing disability are common issues in workers’ compensation cases that can significantly increase the value of claims. Defendants should be well versed in the burden of proof required when litigating disability issues and highlight Plaintiff’s lack of a reasonable job search when fighting these issues. The Hall case firmly establishes that a Plaintiff cannot successfully argue that the job he is doing for the Defendant-Employer is unsuitable thereby proving he is disabled without also conducting a job search for other employment within his work restrictions.

For employers and carriers evaluating similar disability disputes, a careful review of job search evidence and wage earning capacity across all employment remains critical. Our workers’ compensation defense team regularly assists with assessing these issues and developing strategies to mitigate ongoing exposure.