Clarification of “Total Loss of Wage-Earning Capacity” Under N.C.G.S. § 97-29(c)

Introduction

Sturdivant v. North Carolina Department of Public Safety, decided December 13, 2024, by the Supreme Court of North Carolina, addresses the meaning of “total loss of wage-earning capacity” in the State’s workers’ compensation statute. Martin B. Sturdivant, a corrections officer injured on the job and receiving temporary total disability benefits for nearly 500 weeks, sought extended benefits under N.C.G.S. § 97-29(c). The Department of Public Safety, self-insured and administered by CCMSI, denied his claim. On appeal, a divided Court of Appeals panel rejected the Industrial Commission’s plain-language interpretation of the statutory phrase and instead imported the longstanding doctrine of “total disability.” The Supreme Court granted discretionary review to resolve the conflict, clarify the statute’s meaning, and determine whether the evidence supports remand or affirmance.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court unanimously held that:

• “Total loss of wage-earning capacity” in the 2011 amendment means the complete elimination of an employee’s personal capacity to earn any wages in any employment.
• The Court of Appeals erred by conflating this phrase with the defined statutory term “total disability” and its case-law accretions.
• The Industrial Commission correctly applied the plain meaning, and its factual findings—that Sturdivant retained some part-time, sedentary work capacity—are supported by competent evidence.
• The 2023 legislative “clarification” did not change the law’s meaning but merely confirmed the statute’s original plain meaning.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court modified the Court of Appeals’ statutory interpretation, affirmed its decision in all other respects, and denied Sturdivant’s request for remand.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

• Medlin v. Weaver Cooke Constr., LLC (2014): Confirmed the historical definition of “disability” under N.C.G.S. § 97-2(9).
• Wilkes v. City of Greenville (2017): Used shorthand “loss of wage-earning capacity” in disability analyses.
• Morrison v. Burlington Indus. (1981), Lanning v. Fieldcrest-Cannon, Inc. (2000), Little v. Anson Cnty. Schs. Food Serv. (1978): Explored variants of “incapacity to earn wages” and “wage-earning power” in disability context.
• Wynn v. Frederick (2023) and JVC Enterprises v. City of Concord (2021): Articulated principles of statutory interpretation and de novo review.
• Ray v. N.C. Dep’t of Transp. (2012): Addressed the effect of legislative clarifications.

Legal Reasoning

1. Plain‐Meaning Analysis: The Court began with the words—“total,” “loss,” and “wage-earning capacity”—and gave each its ordinary English definition. “Total” means complete; “loss” means absence; “capacity” denotes personal ability. Thus, the phrase equates to an employee’s utter inability to earn wages in any job.

2. Context and Title: The 2011 Act was titled “Protecting and Putting North Carolina Back to Work,” signaling legislative intent to end benefits for those able to reenter the workforce. Interpreting “capacity” as a question of employability (rather than market conditions) aligns with that aim.

3. Defined Terms: Unlike “disability,” “total loss of wage-earning capacity” was not a defined term in the Workers’ Compensation Act. The legislature repeatedly used defined terms in the same amendment but switched to an undeclared phrase here, creating the presumption that the ordinary meaning applies.

4. Rejection of Conflation: The Court of Appeals mistakenly treated the phrase as synonymous with “total disability” and its extensive case-law refinement. The Supreme Court clarified that shorthand phrases in prior opinions never altered the statutory definition; they merely described it in context.

5. Legislative Clarification: In 2023, the legislature “clarified” that “total loss of wage-earning capacity” means complete elimination of wage-earning capacity and that “disability” does not apply. Because this matches the phrase’s plain meaning from 2011, no substantive change occurred.

Impact

This decision will guide Industrial Commission panels and appellate courts in future § 97-29(c) disputes by:

• Emphasizing plain‐meaning construction over case‐law shortcuts.
• Protecting legislative definitions: defined terms must be used consistently or give way to ordinary meaning.
• Limiting extended benefits to workers whose injuries utterly eliminate any earning ability, aligning with the State’s back-to-work policy.
• Discouraging reliance on “total disability” doctrines when the legislature opts for new statutory language.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Workers’ Compensation Benefits: Payments to injured employees who cannot work; “temporary total disability” ends after a statutory period unless full wage-earning capacity is lost.
• Total Loss of Wage-Earning Capacity: Complete absence of any personal ability to earn wages in any job, not just inability to find a position.
• Total Disability: A legal term defined as incapacity to earn one’s pre-injury wages in the same or any other employment.
• Plain‐Meaning Rule: Courts give words their ordinary dictionary definitions unless the statute defines them otherwise.
• Preponderance of Evidence: The standard of proof requiring a finding that a fact is more likely than not to be true.
• De Novo Review: Appellate courts independently interpret statutes without deferring to lower courts’ conclusions.

Conclusion

Sturdivant v. N.C. Dep’t of Public Safety clarifies that “total loss of wage-earning capacity” under N.C.G.S. § 97-29(c) means the complete elimination of an employee’s personal ability to earn any wages. By applying plain‐meaning analysis, respecting legislative definitions, and rejecting doctrinal conflation, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the 2011 Act’s purpose—to reform benefits and encourage return to work. The detailed scrutiny of evidence and acceptance of the Industrial Commission’s findings underscore that only those truly incapable of any employment qualify for extended benefits. This precedent will shape how North Carolina’s workers’ compensation system balances support for injured workers with the State’s broader economic goals.