Cummins v. Bcci Const. Enterprises

North Carolina Industrial Commission

Cummins v. Bcci Const. Enterprises

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission

DecidedAugust 4, 2000

DocketI.C. NO. 566811

StatusPublished

This text of Cummins v. Bcci Const. Enterprises (Cummins v. Bcci Const. Enterprises) 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

Cummins v. Bcci Const. Enterprises, (N.C. Super. Ct. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

In response to defendants motion, the Full Commission notes that the medical records relating to treatment provided by Dr. Bingham were admitted into evidence following the Full Commissions review of the Deputy Commissioners evidentiary ruling. As such, these records were not new evidence and the case of Allen v. K-Mart, ___ N.C. App. ___ (NO. COA99-48, April 4, 2000), is not controlling. As for the calculation of plaintiffs compensation rate, due to a mathematical error the incorrect rate of $360.00 was used in the Commissions prior Opinion and Award, instead of the correct rate of $320.00.

Accordingly, Defendants Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part and the Full Commission HEREBY ORDERS that plaintiff be paid compensation pursuant to the terms of its 16 July 2000 Opinion and Award based on a rate of $320.00. The remainder of the prior Opinion and Award remains unchanged.

No additional costs are assessed at this time.

S/_______________ CHRISTOPHER SCOTT COMMISSIONER

CONCURRING:

S/___________________ BERNADINE S. BALLANCE COMMISSIONER

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

In response to defendants motion, the Full Commission notes that the medical records relating to treatment provided by Dr. Bingham were admitted into evidence following the Full Commissions review of the Deputy Commissioners evidentiary ruling. As such, these records were not new evidence and the case of Allen v. K-Mart, ___ N.C. App. ___ (NO. COA99-48, April 4, 2000), is not controlling. As for the calculation of plaintiffs compensation rate, due to a mathematical error the incorrect rate of $360.00 was used in the Commissions prior Opinion and Award, instead of the correct rate of $320.00.

Accordingly, Defendants Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part and the Full Commission HEREBY ORDERS that plaintiff be paid compensation pursuant to the terms of its 16 July 2000 Opinion and Award based on a rate of $320.00. The remainder of the prior Opinion and Award remains unchanged.

No additional costs are assessed at this time.

S/_______________ CHRISTOPHER SCOTT COMMISSIONER

CONCURRING:

S/___________________ BERNADINE S. BALLANCE COMMISSIONER

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Cummins v. Bcci Const. Enterprises, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cummins-v-bcci-const-enterprises-ncworkcompcom-2000.