Carroll v. Living Centers Southeast

North Carolina Industrial Commission

Carroll v. Living Centers Southeast

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission

DecidedMarch 19, 2002

DocketI.C. NO. 804953

StatusPublished

This text of Carroll v. Living Centers Southeast (Carroll v. Living Centers Southeast) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering North Carolina Industrial Commission primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Carroll v. Living Centers Southeast, (N.C. Super. Ct. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

*********** The undersigned have reviewed the Order of Deputy Commissioner Rowell based upon the evidentiary record. Having found that plaintiff received the settlement funds thirty-six (36) days following Industrial Commission approval of his compromise settlement agreement and that the June 15, 2001, amendments to N.C.G.S. § 97-17 do not remove the right of either party to appeal within fifteen (15) days of approval pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 97-85 for the reasons enumerated in N.C.G.S. § 97-17 which include fraud, misrepresentation, undue influence or mutual mistake, the Full Commission AFFIRMS the Order of the Deputy Commissioner denying plaintiff's motion for a ten percent (10%) late payment penalty.

This the ___ day of March 2002.

S/____________ BUCK LATTIMORE CHAIRMAN

CONCURRING:

S/_____________ THOMAS J. BOLCH COMMISSIONER

S/______________________ LAURA KRANIFELD MAVRETIC COMMISSIONER

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*********** The undersigned have reviewed the Order of Deputy Commissioner Rowell based upon the evidentiary record. Having found that plaintiff received the settlement funds thirty-six (36) days following Industrial Commission approval of his compromise settlement agreement and that the June 15, 2001, amendments to N.C.G.S. § 97-17 do not remove the right of either party to appeal within fifteen (15) days of approval pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 97-85 for the reasons enumerated in N.C.G.S. § 97-17 which include fraud, misrepresentation, undue influence or mutual mistake, the Full Commission AFFIRMS the Order of the Deputy Commissioner denying plaintiff's motion for a ten percent (10%) late payment penalty.

This the ___ day of March 2002.

S/____________ BUCK LATTIMORE CHAIRMAN

CONCURRING:

S/_____________ THOMAS J. BOLCH COMMISSIONER

S/______________________ LAURA KRANIFELD MAVRETIC COMMISSIONER

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Carroll v. Living Centers Southeast, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carroll-v-living-centers-southeast-ncworkcompcom-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack