Gaddy v. Kern

195 S.E.2d 141, 17 N.C. App. 680, 1973 N.C. App. LEXIS 1440
CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina
DecidedMarch 28, 1973
DocketNo. 7314IC18
StatusPublished
Cited by28 cases

This text of 195 S.E.2d 141 (Gaddy v. Kern) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Gaddy v. Kern, 195 S.E.2d 141, 17 N.C. App. 680, 1973 N.C. App. LEXIS 1440 (N.C. Ct. App. 1973).

Opinion

CAMPBELL, Judge.

Plaintiff has argued that the Industrial Commission erred in not considering his evidence concerning severe headaches which he began to experience some three months after the injury occurred. It is his contention that the headaches are evidence of a general disability for which he is entitled to compensation under G.S. 97-30, and that the headache evidence necessitates a finding of a greater disability than that of 20% in his left hand.

Where the claimant has suffered injury as a result of accident arising out of and in the course of his employment of a specific nature included in G.S. 97-31, compensation provided by 97-31 for such specific injury is granted in lieu of all other compensation, except that he may also be entitled to compensation under G.S. 97-29 for total temporary disability [683]*683during the course of the healing of that injury. Watkins v. Motor Lines, 279 N.C. 132, 181 S.E. 2d 588 (1971); Rice v. Panel Co., 199 N.C. 154, 154 S.E. 69 (1930).

Here the plaintiff received compensation during the healing period of the hand injury under G.S. 97-29, and after the healing period from the point of maximum recovery, for partial loss of use of his hand under G.S. 97-31(12).

But plaintiff also contends that the headaches entitled him to compensation under G.S. 97-30, which authorizes compensation for partial incapacity for work resulting from injury, not otherwise covered by G.S. 97-31.

In order to secure an award under G.S. 97-30, the claimant has the burden of proving (1) that the injury resulted from accident arising out of and in the course of his employment; (2) that there resulted from that injury a loss of earning capacity (disability) ; and (3) that he must prove the extent of that disability. Hall v. Chevrolet Co., 263 N.C. 569, 139 S.E. 2d 857 (1965); Henry v. Leather Co., 231 N.C. 477, 57 S.E. 2d 760 (1950). Without such proof there is no authority upon which to make an award even though permanent physical injury may have been suffered. Branham v. Panel Co., 223 N.C. 233, 25 S.E. 2d 865 (1943).

In the instant case there is no evidence that plaintiff’s headaches resulted from the accidental injury to his left arm, except a statement by the plaintiff himself that prior to his injury he had never had habitual headaches. The Industrial Commission is the sole judge of the credibilty of the evidence. It may accept or reject the testimony of a witness, either in whole or in part. It is not required to accept even the uncontradicted testimony of a witness. Morgan v. Furniture Industries, Inc., 2 N.C. App. 126, 162 S.E. 2d 619 (1968).

Since there was no evidence that the plaintiff’s headaches did result from the injury, and since plaintiff did not take exception to the Commission’s finding of fact that the headaches were unrelated to the injury, there is no error in the Commission’s award.

No error.

Judges Hedrick and Graham concur.

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

Related

Harwood v. Modern Tower Solutions
North Carolina Industrial Commission, 2011
King v. Capital of Cary
North Carolina Industrial Commission, 2011
Kyazimova v. South. Heart and Vascular Center
North Carolina Industrial Commission, 2011
Tarkington v. Pearidge Convenience Store
North Carolina Industrial Commission, 2011
Weavil v. Summer Industries
North Carolina Industrial Commission, 2011
Evans v. Stellar Management Group
North Carolina Industrial Commission, 2010
McGriff v. Janiyah Shoe Forum
North Carolina Industrial Commission, 2010
Barber v. Air Specialties of Pinehurst, Inc
North Carolina Industrial Commission, 2010
Steen v. Triad International Maintenance Corp.
North Carolina Industrial Commission, 2010
Carney v. Greenville Tv Appliance, Inc.
North Carolina Industrial Commission, 2010
Blakeney v. Blythe Cons.
North Carolina Industrial Commission, 2010
Reid v. Hospira, Inc.
North Carolina Industrial Commission, 2010
Barbour v. Sawyer's Land Developing
North Carolina Industrial Commission, 2009
Wooten v. Dillard's, Inc.
North Carolina Industrial Commission, 2009
Townes v. Britthaven, Inc.
North Carolina Industrial Commission, 2009
Ayers v. Mountain River Trucking Company
North Carolina Industrial Commission, 2009
Ayers v. Mountain River Trucking Co.
North Carolina Industrial Commission, 2009
Kornegay v. Cooper Tire Rubber Co.
North Carolina Industrial Commission, 2008
Thompson v. Kroger Company
North Carolina Industrial Commission, 2008
Forrest v. Oem America
North Carolina Industrial Commission, 2007

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
195 S.E.2d 141, 17 N.C. App. 680, 1973 N.C. App. LEXIS 1440, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gaddy-v-kern-ncctapp-1973.