A divided published decision reversed partial summary judgment. No implied contract of hire existed between the worker and Johnson Concrete, so neither special-employment doctrine applied. The site operator could not claim exclusivity without the burdens and evidence of an employment relationship, and the civil case could proceed.
The published decision affirmed denial of dismissal. Intent for assault and battery concerns the unwanted contact or apprehension, not an intent to produce the precise resulting injury. Because the complaint alleged an intentional strike, the Pleasant exception to workers’ compensation exclusivity applied despite the negligence label.
The North Carolina Court of Appeals reversed a $26,633 summary judgment for a consultant who claimed she was owed two months of “monthly retainer fees” during a sixty-day notice period in which she performed no work. Reading the contract as a whole, the court held that “retainer fee” does not mean availability payment; the early-termination clause—which conditioned payment on “work completed through the end of the notice period”—controlled. Because the consultant performed no work after termination, Fisher Consulting owed nothing. Summary judgment for the defendant was ordered on remand.
The North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the invalidation of non-compete agreements barring two nurse practitioners from “engaging in the practice of Medicine” for one year within Robeson County and a 35-mile radius. Writing for the majority, Judge Griffin held the covenants overbroad in their terms despite reasonable time and geographic limits, void against public policy, and not salvageable through blue-penciling under North Carolina’s strict severance doctrine. The 2–1 decision—Chief Judge Dillon dissenting—clarifies that healthcare non-competes must track the specific work performed, not broadly prohibit all medical practice.
The North Carolina Court of Appeals held that the OAH lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over a TSERS member’s claim that the 2021 repeal of N.C.G.S. § 135-4(k)—which capped service-credit repurchases at five years—unconstitutionally impaired his vested contractual pension rights, because constitutionality questions are reserved for the judicial branch and fall outside the OAH’s statutory grant of authority.