## Facts

- Christina Sisk worked for Tar Heel Capital Corp. at a Wendy’s restaurant in Forest City, North Carolina, beginning in 1992 and later becoming a shift supervisor.
- The employer maintained an anti-harassment policy with reporting procedures; Sisk signed acknowledgments of receipt and completed quizzes on the policy.
- In March 2001, James Johnson became the restaurant’s general manager and Sisk’s supervisor.
- Sisk testified that Johnson sexually harassed and assaulted her at work during work hours, including sexually suggestive comments, unwanted touching, pulling her onto his lap, placing a hand down her shirt, and grabbing her hard enough to bruise.
- Sisk did not report the harassment through the employer’s internal procedures while it was occurring.
- On July 17, 2001, Sisk resigned, stating she could no longer work due to harassment by Johnson; this was the employer’s first notice of the complaint.
- On July 18, 2001, Sisk sought medical treatment for panic attacks and later received diagnoses including post-traumatic stress disorder and major depressive disorder attributed to the harassment.
- The employer investigated after the complaint, immediately suspended Johnson, terminated him on July 19, 2001, and offered Sisk an opportunity to return to work; she declined.

## Issues

1. Whether Sisk proved a compensable “injury by accident” under the North Carolina Workers’ Compensation Act by showing her psychological injury both occurred in the course of employment and arose out of employment.
2. Whether competent evidence supported the Industrial Commission’s findings that the injury occurred in the course of employment but did not arise out of employment.
3. Whether the Commission’s credibility determinations and related findings (including course-of-employment and disability findings) were reviewable or erroneous on appeal.

## Decision

- The North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the Industrial Commission’s denial of benefits.
- The court upheld the Commission’s conclusion that the alleged psychological injury occurred in the course of employment because the events occurred at the workplace, during work hours, and within a supervisor-subordinate relationship.
- The court upheld the Commission’s conclusion that the injury did not arise out of employment because the harassment was treated as stemming from the supervisor’s personal motives rather than a risk inherent in or incidental to the job.
- The court rejected challenges to the Commission’s factfinding and credibility determinations, applying appellate deference where findings were supported by competent evidence.
- The court also rejected the defendants’ cross-assignments of error seeking to overturn findings favorable to Sisk on course-of-employment and related points.

## Legal Principles

- A compensable workers’ compensation claim requires an “injury by accident” that both occurs in the course of employment (time, place, and circumstances) and arises out of employment (causal connection to employment conditions).
- For injuries from assaults or harassment, “arising out of” generally requires that the risk be inherent in or incidental to the employment, not merely that the workplace furnished the setting.
- The Industrial Commission is the sole judge of witness credibility and evidentiary weight; its findings are conclusive on appeal if supported by competent evidence, even if contrary evidence exists.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed denial of workers’ compensation benefits because, although the supervisor’s harassment occurred at work and during work hours, the Commission could find the resulting psychological injury lacked the required causal connection to an employment-related risk and instead resulted from the supervisor’s personal conduct.


Sisk v. Tar Heel Cap. Corp., 166 N.C. App. 631, 603 S.E.2d 564 (N.C. Ct. App. 2004)