NC Commission Erred in Dismissing Claim With Prejudice
Noting that dismissal with prejudice is the most severe sanction available to the court in a civil case, and thus, it should not be readily granted, a North Carolina appellate court reversed such a dismissal of a workers’ compensation claim by the state’s Industrial Commission, finding that the Commission had made inadequate findings as to why some other relief was not appropriate [Lauziere v. Stanley Martin Cmtys., LLC, 2020 N.C. App. LEXIS 352 (May 5, 2020)]. Observing further that neither the state’s Workers’ Compensation Act nor the Commission’s Rules provided much direction as to when a finding of failure to prosecute was proper or what types of sanctions were appropriate under the circumstances, the Court looked to Rule 41(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure for guidance.
Background
Lauziere, a realtor for the employer, alleged a work-related accidental injury on September 20, 2015, as she tried to shut a heavy garage door at a model home. The employer denied the claim. Lauziere filed a hearing request on November 30, 2015. In early January 2016, the employer sent Lauziere pre-hearing interrogatories and a Request for Production of Documents. In relevant part, the discovery requests asked for information including medical information or documentation detailing Lauziere’s medical history before and after the alleged injury.
In February 2016, Lauziere responded. In part, her counsel indicated certain medical records were unavailable and would be “supplemented” at a later time. Following an impasse at a Commission ordered mediation, Lauziere’s attorney was allowed to withdraw by order filed 10 March 2016. On 16 March 2016, the employer served a second set of discovery requests on the now pro se Lauziere. The parties also received notice that the case was set for hearing on 3 May 2016.
Approximately one week after the 30-day response period for the second round of discovery had expired, the employer moved for an order compelling Lauziere to respond to the discovery requests. Three days later, Lauziere underwent major lower back surgery and the deputy commissioner continued the case off of his 3 May 2016 hearing docket. On 16 June 2016, in an email to the employer’s counsel, Lauziere responded to the second set of discovery and requested her case be set on an expedited hearing docket. Six days later, responding to an email from Lauziere, the employer’s counsel indicated her answers were incomplete. More than a year later, the employer moved to dismiss with prejudice. Lauziere responded to that motion within 24 hours. Lauziere attended the motion hearing pro se. Five days later, the Commission filed an Opinion and Award dismissing Lauziere’s case with prejudice in accordance with Industrial Commission Rule 616(b).
Lauziere obtained legal counsel and appealed to the Full Industrial Commission, which affirmed the deputy commissioner’s dismissal with prejudice. Lauziere appealed.
Three Factors to Be Addressed Before Dismissal
The Court noted that neither he state’s Workers’ Compensation Act nor the Commission’s Rules provided much direction as to when a finding of failure to prosecute was proper or what types of sanctions were appropriate under the circumstances. Accordingly, the Court looked to Rule 41(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure for guidance. Under the Rule, the Commission was required to address three factors:
- Whether a plaintiff acted in a manner which deliberately or unreasonably delayed the matter.
- The amount of prejudice, if any, to the defendant caused by the plaintiff’s failure to prosecute.
- The reason, if one existed, that sanctions short of dismissal would not suffice.
No Evidence that Employer Had Been Prejudiced
The Court stressed that there was no competent evidence in the record supporting the finding that the employer been materially prejudiced. The employer and its carrier had proffered nothing to show how the delay impaired their ability to locate witnesses, medical records, treating physicians, or any other data. As to the employer’s argument that it was prejudiced by being unable to direct medical care, the Court jabbed back by noting that the employer only had the right to direct care when it had accepted the claim, which, of course, it had not done.
No Evidence That Employer Had Expended Sums
As to the Commission’s finding that the employer had been forced to bear “substantial monetary expenses” as a result of Lauziere’s behavior in the case, the Court jabbed again, noting that there was no evidence in the record as to any sums that the employer had so spent.
No Showing That Lesser Sanction Would Not Have Sufficed
Finally, the Court said that there had been no showing that a lesser sanction than dismissal with prejudice could have been entered. Specifically, the Court noted that failure to comply with an order to compel is not the same as failure to prosecute, and evidence applicable to the former may be inapplicable to the latter. In light of all the foregoing, the Commission’s decision was reversed and the case remanded for consistent action.