Articles Tagged with Morehead City Workers’ Compensation

If you’re assaulted and injured on the job by a coworker or even a supervisor, you may not be limited to partial compensation under the Workers’ Compensation laws in North Carolina. In fact, a separate civil lawsuit for compensatory damages against the person who committed the assault and battery may be possible.

It’s an interesting legal aspect of the NC Work Comp law that the Court of Appeals talks about in Hembree v. Hendrick Automotive Group, LLC, No. COA26-172 (N.C. Ct. App. Oct. 7, 2026). In that case, an employee alleges his supervisor repeatedly struck him in the head and neck as a form of workplace “motivation.” In defending against the claim, the supervisor argued that the North Carolina Industrial Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over employees’ injury claims. In its ruling, the Court of Appeals allowed the claim (the civil lawsuit) against the supervisor to go forward in superior court. The legal issues involved, while a bit complicated, are also important.

While Workers’ Comp covers many, if not most, types of injuries and accidents on the job, there are some exceptions and exclusions. The Hembree case is an example of a case that says an employee should not be prevented from suing a coworker or supervisor, using the Workers’ Compensation Act as a defense against punitive damages and traditional “tort” damages to prevent full and fair compensation for injuries.

Workplace Assault in North Carolina | Can You Sue?

For an injury covered by the North Carolina Workers’ Compensation Act, the usual process involves filing a Comp claim that’s handled by the Industrial Commission, not the ordinary civil “tort” court system. The Workers’ Comp system allows for benefits without requiring you to prove ordinary negligence by your employer or even file a civil lawsuit.

With that, the Comp laws also generally prevent filing a separate negligence lawsuit against your employer or a coworker for a covered injury.

N.C.G.S. § 97-9 and N.C.G.S. § 97-10.1 provide the statutory basis for the “exclusivity rule.” In practice, workers’ compensation generally provides the remedy for a covered workplace injury caused by ordinary carelessness.

Our appellate courts in North Carolina have also recognized certain exceptions to the general rule, which are limited, that involve claims of intentional misconduct, assault and battery, and aggravated conduct. Obviously, a serious injury can result from ordinary negligence. The legal system may also, in appropriate circumstances, consider what the defendant did, the defendant’s intent, and whether the defendant was your employer, a manager, supervisor, or a fellow employee.

Hembree v. Hendrick | Workplace Assault & Battery

Randy Hembree alleged that he worked for Hendrick Automotive Group from 2015 through January 2025 and that Eric William Wright directly supervised him. According to the complaint, Wright struck (hit) subordinates, including Hembree, in the head and neck as a way to “motivate” them.

Hembree alleged that the conduct continued through 2022, despite Wright knowing Hembree had undergone neck surgery in 2015. He said his neurological symptoms, including vertigo, dizziness, blurred vision, numbness, and fatigue, were related to the repeated assaults and battery. He also alleged ongoing treatment for a severe cervical spinal condition that had gotten so bad that he is now totally disabled.

Suing a Supervisor | The “Pleasant Exception”

In Pleasant v. Johnson, 312 N.C. 710 (1985), the North Carolina Supreme Court held that the workers’ compensation law does not protect a co-employee from civil liability for willful, wanton, and reckless negligence. The case involved a worker who tried to frighten a coworker by driving a truck close to him and sounding the horn. In that case, the truck struck the coworker and seriously injured his knee.

The Supreme Court allowed the civil claim even though the coworker had not specifically intended to injure the worker’s knee. The conduct described in Pleasant went beyond an ordinary mistake on the job. The court held that willful, wanton, and reckless negligence could be treated as an intentional injury for purposes of the Workers’ Compensation Act.

The legal term is “constructive intent.” You can establish that kind of intent by showing a reckless disregard for another person’s safety, rather than proving that the defendant wanted the particular injury to occur. The standard is somewhat high. Calling someone reckless in a complaint does not establish it. You need facts describing what the person actually did.

Hembree’s complaint described repeated, deliberate blows to his head and neck. He alleged his claim against Wright involved willful, wanton, and reckless negligence. The court also read those allegations as describing an intentional tort, that being assault and battery. A tort alleges a civil wrong and seeks damages. The alleged physical conduct, rather than the name Hembree gave his claim, supplied the basis for allowing his lawsuit to continue.

Intentional Contact | Intent to Cause Injury

Wright, in his defense to the civil allegations, argued that Hembree had not alleged the intent required to sue him outside the workers’ compensation system. The Court of Appeals answered that argument by examining assault and battery. A civil battery involves intentional, unpermitted contact with your person. Civil assault concerns the apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact. The law protects you from both the unwanted touching and, when the elements of assault are present, the threat of that contact.

According to the complaint, Wright meant to strike Hembree. He did not also have to intend the resulting neurological symptoms or disabling neck condition. A person who deliberately makes unwanted physical contact cannot defeat the intent requirement simply by saying he never expected the injury to be that serious.

Calling the conduct workplace motivation did not change what Hembree alleged. His supervisor repeatedly hit him in the head and neck. The appellate court found those allegations sufficient to bring the claim within the Pleasant exception. Hembree would still have to prove what happened and connect the conduct to the injuries for which he sought compensation.

Workplace Collisions and the Pender Case

Wright relied on Pender v. Lambert, 225 N.C. App. 390 (2013). In that case, a loss-prevention employee pursued a suspected shoplifter and accidentally collided with a coworker. The coworker suffered a fatal head injury. The evidence did not show the willful, wanton, and reckless conduct needed to pursue a Pleasant claim.

Hembree alleged deliberate strikes. The employee in Pender had accidentally collided with someone while chasing a shoplifter. Wright’s argument focused on whether either defendant intended the eventual harm. The court instead examined the intent to make contact. Hembree’s complaint alleged that Wright intended the blows themselves.

The cases also reached the appellate court at different points in the litigation. Pender involved summary judgment, when the court could examine the evidence developed in the case. Wright’s appeal involved a motion to dismiss. The question was whether Hembree’s complaint described a claim that could proceed outside the Industrial Commission. The court was not conducting a trial or deciding whether the alleged assaults had occurred.

Suing Your Employer | The Woodson Rule

Hembree sued three Hendrick companies as well as Wright. The companies’ motion to dismiss remained pending when Wright appealed, so this decision addressed Wright’s request to dismiss the claim against him. It did not decide the companies’ motion or establish their liability.

For Wright’s appeal, the parties treated him as Hembree’s co-employee. His supervisory position did not make the claim against him an employer claim. The court therefore applied Pleasant. A claim against the employer requires consideration of the law governing employer liability.

In Woodson v. Rowland, 329 N.C. 330 (1991), the Supreme Court recognized an exception when an employer intentionally engages in misconduct knowing it is substantially certain to cause serious injury or death, and an employee is injured or killed by that misconduct. You need more than evidence that management could have foreseen an accident or allowed an unsafe practice. The claim requires the employer’s knowledge that serious injury or death was substantially certain.

A supervisor’s conduct and a company’s responsibility for that conduct need careful examination. The job title alone does not answer who can be sued or which rule applies. In Hembree, the appellate ruling allowed the claim against Wright to continue under the law governing claims against co-employees.

Proving a Workplace Assault Claim

Hembree won the right to continue his lawsuit against Wright. The Court of Appeals did not award him damages. Its decision kept the courthouse open for the claim described in his complaint.

To recover in a civil case, you need evidence. Witnesses, recordings, messages, and admissions may help establish that the physical contact occurred. Medical records and testimony may help establish whether the contact caused or aggravated your condition. Your work history, earnings, treatment expenses, and evidence of lasting physical limitations can help establish the losses you suffered.

Hembree’s earlier neck surgery was part of the alleged history. The complaint also alleged that Wright knew about that surgery and continued striking him. A prior condition does not answer whether later contact caused an additional injury or made the condition worse. That question calls for a review of your condition before the incident, your symptoms afterward, and the medical evidence connecting the two.

Damages After a Workplace Assault

A civil lawsuit can allow you to seek personal injury damages that differ from the benefits available through workers’ compensation. Depending on the claim and the proof, compensatory damages may include medical expenses, lost earnings, and pain and suffering. Those damages compensate you for losses caused by the defendant’s conduct. The amount depends on what you can prove. Those are technically different from the value of Workers Compensation claims.

Indeed, punitive damages serve a different purpose. Under N.C.G.S. § 1D-1, they punish egregiously wrongful acts and deter similar conduct. N.C.G.S. § 1D-15 requires liability for compensatory damages and an aggravating factor related to the injury. Those may include things like fraud, malice, or willful or wanton conduct. You must prove that aggravating factor by clear and convincing evidence, a higher burden than the usual greater-weight-of-the-evidence standard for civil liability. Ordinarily, the defendant carries the burden of proof for affirmative defenses.

Chapter 1D of the North Carolina Workers Comp Act also imposes other requirements and limits. Permission to proceed with a workplace assault lawsuit does not establish entitlement to punitive damages. Hembree addressed whether the claim against Wright could continue in superior court. Any damages award would require further proof under the law governing the damages requested.

Workers’ Compensation Benefits and a Separate Lawsuit

You do not necessarily have to give up workers’ compensation benefits to pursue a qualifying lawsuit against a coworker. The injured employee in Pleasant had already received disability benefits. The Supreme Court held that those payments did not bar his civil claim for the coworker’s willful, wanton, and reckless conduct.

The money recovered in the two proceedings still has to be accounted for. Pleasant addressed distribution of the civil recovery under N.C.G.S. § 97-10.2. An employer or workers’ compensation carrier may have reimbursement rights for benefits paid. Those rights, along with the statute’s settlement and distribution provisions, can affect how much of a civil recovery you receive.

Before agreeing to a settlement, you need to know what the agreement resolves, what claims you are releasing, and how any reimbursement claim will be handled. The settlement figure alone does not tell you the amount you will receive or whether you are giving up another claim.

A possible assault lawsuit also does not take the place of pursuing your workers’ compensation claim. The Comp claim may address treatment and disability benefits while the civil case addresses the person’s liability for the assault. Both need attention to filing requirements, evidence, and settlement terms.

Workplace Assault Evidence and Filing Deadlines

Write down what happened while you can still recall the details. Identify who struck you, when and where it occurred, who saw it, and what symptoms followed. If there were several incidents, record them separately. Keep messages, photographs, available recordings, and communications with management. Names of witnesses are useful, but knowing what each witness actually observed is more useful.

Include your description of the physical conduct in the record. A complaint that says a supervisor repeatedly struck an employee, on specific dates, in the head and neck tells the court more than a general accusation that the supervisor was abusive. Hembree’s allegations described the conduct for his civil claims.

It’s important to pay attention to the workers’ compensation deadlines as well. N.C.G.S. § 97-22 generally requires written notice to the employer immediately or as soon as practicable and establishes a thirty-day requirement, with statutory exceptions. N.C.G.S. § 97-24 generally requires preserving an injury-by-accident claim within two years, subject to the statute’s additional provisions.

Telling your employer about an injury and filing your claim with the Industrial Commission are separate steps. The Commission explains that an employer’s Form 19 does not file the employee’s claim. A civil lawsuit has its own deadlines. Do not assume that one filing preserves both claims.

North Carolina Workers’ Compensation Lawyer Kevin Jones | Dodge Jones Injury Law Firm

After a workplace injury, it’s important to understand what legal claims are available and what each can address. Treatment, time away from work, permanent physical limitations, and the circumstances of an assault can raise questions under both workers’ compensation law and civil injury law. Hembree shows why a review should include what actually happened, who was responsible, and whether the alleged conduct supports a lawsuit outside the Comp system.

Kevin Jones at Dodge Jones Injury Law Firm is a North Carolina State Bar Board Certified Specialist in Workers’ Compensation Law. He has practiced in North Carolina since 1992. His work includes workers’ compensation and personal injury claims, the areas of law an injured worker may need evaluated after a workplace assault.

Dodge Jones Injury Law Firm represents injured workers throughout eastern North Carolina, including New Bern, Greenville and Winterville, Jacksonville, and Morehead City. Evaluating the value of a case often involves taking a look at the medical evidence, the worker’s (employee’s) losses, the available claims and legal causes of action, and how benefits or a settlement in one proceeding may affect the other.

If you were injured by a coworker or supervisor, contact Dodge Jones or call 877-622-6671 to schedule a confidential consultation.