NC Court Reiterates that Full Commission, Not the Deputy Commissioner, is the Ultimate Factfinder
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-85(a), which empowers the North Carolina Industrial Commission to reconsider the evidence before the deputy commissioner, and to amend the deputy commissioner’s award “if good ground be shown” to do so, does not impose upon the Commission a duty to make a specific finding that the Commission determined there were in fact good grounds to deviate from the deputy commissioner’s findings, held a state appellate court in Forte v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 2022-NCCOA-281, 2022 N.C. App. LEXIS 282 (May 3, 2022]. In situations such as the case at bar, the appellate court would presume that the Commission found the necessary “good cause” and examine whether the record supported that finding.
Background
Forte worked for nearly a decade as a roll changer for the employer, a position that involves handling heavy cassettes filled with rubber. Forte alleged that he sustained an injury to his left knee while working on June 1, 2015. Forte subsequently introduced evidence that he had sought medical treatment for a left knee condition on June 2, 2015, on June 3, 2015, and again several weeks later. Forte was involved in a motor vehicle accident on June 20, 2015. On August 21, 2015, his treating orthopedic specialist performed surgery to address a left knee meniscal derangement.
In September 2015, Forte reported the alleged workplace injury to his employer for the first time. He subsequently filed a workers’ compensation claim, which the employer denied. The matter proceeded to a hearing before a deputy commissioner who found Forte to be a “compelling and credible witness.” The deputy commission indicated the greater weight of the evidence supported Forte’s testimony regarding a twisting accident and injury to his left knee. The deputy commissioner accordingly found that Forte had sustained a compensable injury arising out of and in the course of his employment.
Full Commission Disagrees With Deputy Commissioner
After a hearing, the Full Commission issued an opinion and award finding that Forte did not sustain a workplace injury by accident. It found that Forte’s testimony was not credible based on Forte’s inconsistent reports to medical providers, “which did not include an account of a traumatic workplace event”; the vagueness of his testimony concerning motor vehicle accidents before and after the alleged injury; and his failure to report the workplace injury until three months after he claimed it occurred. Forte timely appealed the Commission’s opinion and award to the North Carolina Court of Appeals.
“Good Ground” Standard
On appeal, Forte challenged the Full Commission’s decision to reconsider the evidence, make fact findings different from those found by the deputy commissioner, and change the award without expressly stating that the Full Commission determined there were good grounds to do so. The Court of Appeals acknowledged that under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-85(a), the Full Commission may reconsider the evidence before the deputy commissioner, and amend the deputy commissioner’s award “if good ground be shown” to do so. The Court added that whether this “good ground” standard was satisfied was a matter within the sound discretion of the full Commission, and the full Commission’s determination in that regard would not be reviewed on appeal absent a showing of manifest abuse of that discretion.
Was Express Finding of “Good Grounds” Required?
The Court noted that the parties had acknowledged that the State’s appellate courts had never addressed whether the Full Commission must make an express finding that good grounds exist, or expressly state the reasoning for that determination. The Court indicated that ordinarily, when a trial court has discretion to act upon a showing of good cause and makes no express findings, the “Court presumes the trial judge found the necessary “good cause” and examines whether the record supports that finding. The Court said it could see no reason to create a different rule for this discretionary decision of the Full Commission.
Accordingly, the Court said it would presume that the Full Commission found the necessary good grounds to reconsider the evidence and change the resulting award. Its review on appeal was, therefore, limited to examining whether the implied finding of good grounds was a manifest abuse of discretion.
Competent Evidence Supported Commission’s Decision
According to the Court, the Commission made findings about Forte’s own testimony that referenced a lack of corroborating evidence. For example, the Commission found that Forte testified about a coworker who witnessed the accident, but did not offer any testimony from that coworker. Similarly, the Commission found that Forte testified that he went to the employer’s medical clinic after the accident and spoke to a nurse about his injury. But the Commission again found that Forte did not offer any testimony from the nurse or any evidence that corroborated this visit to the clinic.
The Court acknowledged Forte’s contention that the Commission required Forte to present corroborating testimony to support his own credible testimony. It said, however, this was not a fair reading of the Commission’s findings. The Commission ultimately found that Forte’s testimony was not credible. The Commission’s references to the lack of any corroborating evidence in its findings were part of the Commission’s explanation for why, in light of inconsistencies in Forte’s testimony, the Commission chose not to credit his testimony concerning the alleged accident.
Credibility is for the Commission
The Court stressed that it was the Commission’s role to assess credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given to witness [Author’s note: In a number of states, the Commission or Board must defer to credibility findings by the hearing officer. See Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 130.03[5]]. The Court found that the Commission’s findings showed that it properly weighed Forte’s testimony based on competent evidence and ultimately found key portions of that testimony not credible. That credibility determination is left to the Commission and was not one that the Court could review upon appeal. Accordingly, the Commission’s opinion and award (denying compensation) was affirmed.