Hardison v. W. H. Hampton & Son

165 S.E. 355, 203 N.C. 187, 1932 N.C. LEXIS 343
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedSeptember 21, 1932
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 165 S.E. 355 (Hardison v. W. H. Hampton & Son) 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
Hardison v. W. H. Hampton & Son, 165 S.E. 355, 203 N.C. 187, 1932 N.C. LEXIS 343 (N.C. 1932).

Opinion

Connor, J.

There is no provision in the North Carolina Workmen’s Compensation Act requiring an injured employee to file a claim for compensation for his injury with the North Carolina Industrial Commission. The injured employee is required by section 22 of the act to give notice to his employer of the accident which resulted in his injury. Thereafter, the employer is required to report the accident and claim of the employee for compensation to the Commission on form 19, as prescribed by the Commission. No settlement of the claim can be made by the employer and the employee without the approval of the Commission. Section 18. If they fail to reach an agreement in regard to the compensation to which the injured employee is entitled, then either party may make application to the Commission for a hearing in regard to the matters at issue, and for a ruling thereon. Section 57. When the em *189 ployer bas filed with, the Commission a report of the accident and claim of the injured employee, the Commission has jurisdiction of the matter, and the claim is filed with the Commission within the meaning of section 24.

In the instant case, the claim of the injured employee was filed with the Industrial Commission within one year after the accident, and for that reason the employee was not barred of his right to compensation. There is no error in the judgment. It is

Affirmed.

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

Related

Gore v. Myrtle/Mueller
653 S.E.2d 400 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2007)
Perdue v. Daniel International, Inc.
296 S.E.2d 845 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1982)
Smith v. Allied Exterminators, Inc.
180 S.E.2d 390 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1971)
Bye v. Interstate Granite Co.
53 S.E.2d 274 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1949)
Whitted v. . Palmer-Bee Co.
46 S.E.2d 109 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1948)
Thompson v. Virginia & Carolina Southern Railroad
6 S.E.2d 38 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1939)
Winslow v. . Carolina Conference Association
191 S.E. 403 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1937)
Winslow v. Carolina Conference Ass'n of the Seventh Day Adventists
211 N.C. 571 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1937)
Lilly v. . Belk Brothers
188 S.E. 319 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1936)
Hanks v. Southern Public Utilities Co.
186 S.E. 252 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1936)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
165 S.E. 355, 203 N.C. 187, 1932 N.C. LEXIS 343, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hardison-v-w-h-hampton-son-nc-1932.