North Carolina Court Affirms Denial of Dismissal of Workplace Injury Claim Against Co-Employee

On October 7, 2026, the North Carolina Court of Appeals allowed an injured worker's civil claim against a co-employee to continue after a motion to dismiss. This decision draws a clear line within North Carolina workers compensation exclusivity. This rule usually sends workplace injury disputes to the Industrial Commission.

The court said allegations of intentional physical contact could fit the narrow Pleasant exception. This exception covers willful, wanton, and reckless negligence. Workers with a workplace injury should understand that the exclusive remedy rule is powerful. However, the rule has limits. Our North Carolina workers compensation attorneys evaluate workplace injury claims throughout the state by phone.

Legal information only, not legal advice. The facts, evidence, and filing choices in every injury claim differ. In case No. COA26-172, the court ruled only on whether the complaint could proceed against the co-employee. It did not decide whether the worker will ultimately prove the allegations. It also did not decide whether the worker will recover damages.

What did the Court of Appeals decide?

In North Carolina Court of Appeals No. COA26-172, the court reviewed an appeal from an order denying a co-employee's motion to dismiss. The lawsuit began with a complaint filed in superior court on May 15, 2025. The worker alleged repeated strikes to the head and neck by a supervisor. The alleged conduct occurred during employment between 2015 and January 2025.

The complaint said that the physical conduct became worse through 2022. It also said the supervisor knew about the worker's prior neck surgery. The complaint alleged severe neurological symptoms. It also alleged a cervical spinal condition that had progressed to total disability. At this stage, the court accepted the complaint's factual allegations. It did so only to test whether the complaint was legally sufficient.

"[T]he Workers’ Compensation Act does not shield a co-employee from common law liability for willful, wanton[,] and reckless negligence[,] . . . consistent with the distinction which has previously been made in such cases between ordinary negligence and intentional torts." (Source: Pleasant v. Johnson, 312 N.C. at 716)

The defendant argued that the Industrial Commission had exclusive jurisdiction. The defendant said the alleged injury happened at work. The Court of Appeals agreed that North Carolina workers compensation exclusivity is the general rule. However, it held that the allegations could fit the exception recognized in Pleasant v. Johnson.

The ruling focused on the alleged intent to make physical contact. It did not require an alleged intent to cause every medical consequence. The court compared this case with an accidental collision during a workplace pursuit. In that other situation, the evidence did not show the required reckless or willful conduct.

Why the procedural stage mattered

The appeal came from denial of a motion to dismiss, not from summary judgment after evidence gathering. A dismissal motion asks whether the complaint could support relief. The court considers any facts that fit the complaint's allegations. Summary judgment asks whether the actual record permits a trial.

This difference allowed the complaint to continue. The worker must still provide evidence that meets the legal standard.

Why the appeal could happen now

The trial court order was interlocutory. This means it did not resolve every claim against every party. The Court of Appeals still reviewed the order. North Carolina precedent treats a ruling on the Industrial Commission's exclusive jurisdiction as affecting a substantial right.

Who can use this workers compensation exception?

The decision concerns a worker who alleges a civil claim against a co-employee. A co-employee is another person employed at the workplace. The decision does not say that every injured worker may bypass the Industrial Commission. It also does not allow every injured worker to bring an ordinary negligence lawsuit against a colleague.

The main alleged conduct was intentional, unwanted physical contact. The court explained that battery protects a person's freedom from intentional and unpermitted contact. Battery is a legal claim based on such contact. Under the opinion, a person need not allegedly intend the full extent of an injury. The intent to make the contact may provide the relevant intent.

“Regardless of whether he intended the contact to cause the harm that allegedly resulted, it was his intent to make the unwanted contact that supplied the requisite intent permitting the invocation of the Pleasant exception.”

North Carolina workers compensation exclusivity still generally protects employers and co-employees from ordinary negligence claims. Such conduct usually belongs in the workers compensation system. It usually does not support a separate civil action.

The opinion also describes a separate employer-focused exception from Woodson v. Rowland. This exception may apply when an employer intentionally engages in misconduct. The employer must also know that serious injury or death is substantially certain to result. The court focused on the Pleasant exception instead. The appealed claim was against a co-employee.

What this ruling does not decide

The appeal concerned only the co-employee's motion to dismiss. It did not rule on the corporate defendants' separate motion to dismiss, which was still pending in the trial court when the co-employee's motion was denied. The opinion also does not decide disputed facts. It does not decide medical causation, damages, or whether the alleged conduct occurred.

What this means for an injured worker

In our experience, the first question is often whether a workplace injury must stay only in the workers compensation system. The answer depends on the exact conduct alleged. It also depends on the parties' relationship and the available evidence. Small differences in the facts can change the legal analysis.

Workers should not delay reporting an injury. They should not delay seeking authorized medical care because a civil claim may exist. A possible exception may require careful legal analysis. It does not remove the practical need to protect a workers compensation claim. Review the steps for filing a North Carolina workers compensation claim along with any civil-claim evaluation.

What does North Carolina law say about exclusive remedy?

North Carolina General Statutes § 97-9 establishes the exclusive remedy principle. This principle generally limits an employer's liability for covered workplace injuries. The employer's liability is limited to remedies available under the Workers' Compensation Act. The North Carolina Industrial Commission generally has exclusive jurisdiction over these claims.

The tradeoff is central to the system. Workers may seek statutory benefits without proving ordinary negligence. Statutory benefits are benefits created by law. Employers ordinarily avoid civil damages litigation over covered workplace injuries.

Two narrow exceptions frame the ruling

The Supreme Court of North Carolina recognized the Pleasant exception in Pleasant v. Johnson. This exception permits a civil action against a co-employee. The claim must allege willful, wanton, and reckless negligence. The court described this conduct as falling between ordinary negligence and intentional injury.

The Woodson exception, described above, addresses employer conduct. The Court of Appeals noted that courts rarely find the high Pleasant standard satisfied after evidence has been developed.

Labels alone therefore do not control. Calling a claim negligence does not decide its legal status. Courts examine the acts described in the claim. In COA26-172, the alleged repeated intentional striking was considered in determining whether the Pleasant exception applied. This remained possible even though the complaint used negligence terminology.

Safety complaints, benefits, and civil claims are separate

Workers should also know the difference between safety enforcement and compensation benefits. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration complaint process addresses workplace safety concerns. A workers compensation claim addresses benefits for a covered injury. A civil tort claim presents separate questions. A tort claim is a civil claim for harm caused by another person's wrongful conduct.

What should an injured worker do now?

Begin by preserving a clear record of what happened. Write down the date and location. List the people present. Record the words or actions involved. Note the body areas affected. Save photographs, messages, incident reports, and medical instructions. Also save the names of people who may have witnessed the event.

Next, report the injury through the employer's workplace process. Seek appropriate medical attention. Describe your symptoms accurately and consistently. Keep copies of paperwork and appointment records. Keep work restrictions and communications about missed work or modified duties. These records may help explain what happened and how the injury affected you.

Then separate the questions that can become confused after a serious injury. Ask whether the injury arose from work. Ask whether you should file a workers compensation claim. Ask whether the facts suggest intentional or willful conduct by a co-employee. The North Carolina Industrial Commission's injured workers page explains the state's claims process.

Prepare for a fact-specific review

Bring the complaint, employer or insurer correspondence, and medical records to a legal review. Also bring witness information and any video or electronic communications. Do not alter messages. Do not post detailed accounts online. Evidence of intentional contact can be important. However, each case turns on its own record.

For a free case evaluation, call Vasquez Law Firm at 1-844-967-3536. Our workers compensation legal team helps injured people anywhere in North Carolina by phone. Se Habla Español.

What should workers watch next?

The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of dismissal, but the Supreme Court of North Carolina may still review that decision. Ordinary workplace injury claims generally belong before the Industrial Commission. The Pleasant exception can allow a civil claim against a co-employee. The claim must involve willful, wanton, and reckless negligence. The court held that a complaint alleging intentional striking could survive dismissal under that exception.

The case can still continue in Superior Court. A later ruling could assess whether the evidence meets the high Pleasant standard. The October opinion did not decide that later question.

Workers can follow workers compensation procedures through the North Carolina Industrial Commission's workers compensation claims page. Court opinions and official filings remain the best places to verify developments in a particular case. News reports and online summaries may not include the full legal record.

It is not yet settled whether the allegations in COA26-172 will ultimately prove willful, wanton, and reckless negligence. Workers can rely on one point today. An allegation of intentional contact deserves careful review. No one should assume that North Carolina workers compensation exclusivity ends the analysis without examining the facts.

Frequently Asked Questions

What does exclusive remedy mean in North Carolina workers compensation?

Exclusive remedy means the Workers' Compensation Act generally supplies the legal remedy for a covered workplace injury. Under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-9, an employer's liability is generally limited to the remedies the Act provides. The Industrial Commission usually has jurisdiction, rather than a Superior Court civil lawsuit for ordinary negligence.

Can I sue a co-worker after a workplace injury?

Usually, an ordinary negligence claim against a co-employee is barred by the exclusive remedy rule. The Pleasant exception allows a civil claim when the co-employee's conduct is alleged and proven to be willful, wanton, and reckless negligence. In COA26-172, the court held that allegations of intentional physical striking could fall within that narrow exception at the motion-to-dismiss stage.

Does an intentional act require intent to cause the final injury?

The Court of Appeals explained that the relevant intent may be the intent to make unwanted physical contact. The opinion distinguished intent to act from intent to cause every resulting harm. That legal principle mattered because the complaint alleged intentional strikes, not merely accidental contact.

What is the Woodson exception?

The Woodson exception concerns employer conduct. It may permit a civil action when an employer intentionally engages in misconduct while knowing that serious injury or death is substantially certain to occur. The Court of Appeals described it as distinct from Pleasant, which addresses qualifying conduct by a co-employee.

Did the Court of Appeals award benefits or damages in COA26-172?

No. The court affirmed denial of a motion to dismiss the claim against the co-employee. It did not decide whether the allegations are true, whether the worker can prove causation, or what damages may be available. Those questions depend on later proceedings and evidence.

Should I still file a workers compensation claim if intentional conduct may be involved?

Protecting a workers compensation claim remains important after a workplace injury. A possible civil exception does not automatically replace the statutory claim process. Reporting the injury, obtaining care, preserving evidence, and obtaining a fact-specific legal assessment can help a worker understand available paths.

Sources

• North Carolina Court of Appeals Opinion, No. COA26-172
• North Carolina Industrial Commission, Workers' Compensation Claims
• OSHA, File a Safety and Health Complaint

Need a careful review of a North Carolina workplace injury? Call Vasquez Law Firm at 1-844-967-3536 for a free case evaluation, or contact our team online. Legal information in this article is not individualized legal advice, and no outcome is guaranteed.