Greer v. Swannanoa Laundry, Inc.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Greer v. Swannanoa Laundry, Inc.

164 S.E. 116, 202 N.C. 729, 1932 N.C. LEXIS 205

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedMay 18, 1932

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 164 S.E. 116 (Greer v. Swannanoa Laundry, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Greer v. Swannanoa Laundry, Inc., 164 S.E. 116, 202 N.C. 729, 1932 N.C. LEXIS 205 (N.C. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

CoNNOR, J.

It is provided in the North Carolina Workmen’s Compensation Act that either party to a proceeding begun and prosecuted before the North Carolina Industrial Commission for compensation under the provisions of said act, may appeal from the decision of said Commission to the Superior Court of the county in which the accident happened, for errors of law under the same terms and conditions as govern appeals in ordinary civil actions. N. C. Code of 1931, sec. 8081(ppp), sec. 60, *731 cbap. 120, Public Laws 1929. It is further provided in said act that an award made by the North Carolina Industrial Commission in a proceeding begun and prosecuted before said Commission for compensation shall be conclusive and binding as to all questions of fact. It has accordingly been held by this Court that only questions of law involved in an award made by the Commission in a proceeding of which the Commission has jurisdiction may be considered and passed upon by the judge of the Superior Court on an appeal to said court from an award made by the North Carolina Industrial Commission. Aycock v. Cooper, ante, 500, 163 S. E., 569, and cases cited in the opinion in that case.

In the instant case, it may be conceded that there was evidence tending to show that plaintiff suffered an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, resulting in the loss of an eye. However, there was also evidence tending to show that the loss of plaintiff’s eye was not the result of an accident, but of a disease which was not caused or aggravated by an accident which arose out of or in the course of his employment. The conflicting evidence was considered by both Commissioner Dorsett and by the full Commission. The findings of fact made by Commissioner Dorsett and approved by the full Commission, were conclusive and binding on the judge of the Superior Court. Upon these findings of fact, there was no error in the award denying plaintiff compensation for the loss of his eye, under the provisions of the North Carolina Workmen’s Compensation Act. The award should be affirmed. The judgment remanding the proceeding to the Industrial Commission is

Reversed.

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

CoNNOR, J.

It is provided in the North Carolina Workmen’s Compensation Act that either party to a proceeding begun and prosecuted before the North Carolina Industrial Commission for compensation under the provisions of said act, may appeal from the decision of said Commission to the Superior Court of the county in which the accident happened, for errors of law under the same terms and conditions as govern appeals in ordinary civil actions. N. C. Code of 1931, sec. 8081(ppp), sec. 60, *731 cbap. 120, Public Laws 1929. It is further provided in said act that an award made by the North Carolina Industrial Commission in a proceeding begun and prosecuted before said Commission for compensation shall be conclusive and binding as to all questions of fact. It has accordingly been held by this Court that only questions of law involved in an award made by the Commission in a proceeding of which the Commission has jurisdiction may be considered and passed upon by the judge of the Superior Court on an appeal to said court from an award made by the North Carolina Industrial Commission. Aycock v. Cooper, ante, 500, 163 S. E., 569, and cases cited in the opinion in that case.

In the instant case, it may be conceded that there was evidence tending to show that plaintiff suffered an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, resulting in the loss of an eye. However, there was also evidence tending to show that the loss of plaintiff’s eye was not the result of an accident, but of a disease which was not caused or aggravated by an accident which arose out of or in the course of his employment. The conflicting evidence was considered by both Commissioner Dorsett and by the full Commission. The findings of fact made by Commissioner Dorsett and approved by the full Commission, were conclusive and binding on the judge of the Superior Court. Upon these findings of fact, there was no error in the award denying plaintiff compensation for the loss of his eye, under the provisions of the North Carolina Workmen’s Compensation Act. The award should be affirmed. The judgment remanding the proceeding to the Industrial Commission is

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

164 S.E. 116, 202 N.C. 729, 1932 N.C. LEXIS 205, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/greer-v-swannanoa-laundry-inc-nc-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack