J. Michael Ricci has handled workers’ compensation matters for employers and workers’ compensation carriers at Cranfill Sumner & Hartzog since 2002. He has handled matters at all levels in the Workers’ Compensation Practice Group including mediated settlement conferences, hearings at the Deputy Commissioner and Full Commission levels, and appeals to the North Carolina Court of Appeals.
Michael’s clients include manufacturers, hospital and medical providers, retail stores, construction companies, and their workers’ compensation carriers. He has experience handling claims in all areas of workers’ compensation including occupational diseases, traumatic injuries by accident, subrogation claims, coverage questions, and disability issues.
Most Recent Posts
UPDATED MARCH 30, 2020 There have been several operation and deadline updates affecting North Carolina’s courts and the Industrial Commission. … Read More
The Families First Coronavirus Response Act is Signed Into Law On March 18, 2020, President Trump signed into law the… Read More
Mike Ricci (Wilmington) obtained a favorable Opinion and Award from the Industrial Commission in a back injury claim. On the date… Read More
On May 20, the Wilmington office of Cranfill Sumner & Hartzog LLP (CSH Law) will host CE By the Sea. The half-day seminar will be held 9 a.m.-1 p.m. at the CSH Law office in Wilmington. Complimentary CE Credit is available for Workers’ Comp Adjusters (3 hours) and Human Resources Professionals (3 hours – pending).… Read More
Cranfill Sumner & Hartzog LLP (CSH Law) recently named J. Michael Ricci a partner in the firm. Mike is based in the firm’s Wilmington office and is a member of the Workers’ Compensation Practice Group.… Read More
Mike Ricci obtained a favorable Form 24 Decision from the Commission. Defendants Form 24 sought termination of plaintiff’s TTD based on plaintiff’s release to return to work full duty. In addition, defendants cited plaintiff’s refusal to return to work with the employer, despite plaintiff’s contention he was unable to find suitable employment. The Industrial Commission approved the Form 24 and held that defendants were entitled to immediately terminate TTD, and awarded a credit for overpaid TTD.… Read More
Mike Ricci obtained a favorable Form 24 Decision from the Commission. Defendants Form 24 sought termination of plaintiff’s TTD on multiple grounds, including that plaintiff had been released to return to work full duty, and that plaintiff had refused suitable employment offered by the employer. The Industrial Commission approved the Form 24 and ruled defendants were entitled to terminate TTD and awarded a credit for overpaid TTD.… Read More
Mike Ricci obtained a favorable Opinion and Award from the Full Commission regarding an average weekly wage (AWW) dispute. Defendant-Insurer had filed a Form 60 accepting plaintiff’s claim and stipulating to an AWW based on initial reports of plaintiff’s wages, if he had been employed on a full time basis. However, subsequent investigation revealed plaintiff only picked up shifts as necessary, and was not a full time employee. The Full Commission found and concluded that plaintiff’s testimony regarding his employment history, earnings and jobs performed was not credible. Instead, the Commission agreed with defendants’ calculation of the AWW based on the employer’s testimony and the limited corresponding documentation. As a result, plaintiff’s AWW was amended and his TTD benefits were reduced from $306.27 to $30.00 per week.
Of note, as a result of prior litigation of this matter the Industrial Commission denied plaintiff’s claim for total knee replacement, and further held that plaintiff current condition and need for treatment were unrelated to the compensable injury. Therefore, defendants were not responsible for any ongoing medical treatment in connection with plaintiff’s compensable injuries.… Read More
Mike Ricci obtained a favorable Opinion and Award from the Industrial Commission in a claim where plaintiff sustained neck and arm injuries as a result of a trip and fall down a stairwell of the employer’s building. Defendants denied plaintiff’s claim on the basis that plaintiff’s injury did not arise out of or in the course of her employment as it occurred while plaintiff was leaving work for the day on a premises that was not owned, maintained or controlled by defendant-employer. The Industrial Commission agreed and plaintiff’s claim for benefits was denied. … Read More