Knight v. Ford Body Co.

197 S.E. 563, 214 N.C. 7, 1938 N.C. LEXIS 243
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedJune 15, 1938
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 197 S.E. 563 (Knight v. Ford Body Co.) 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
Knight v. Ford Body Co., 197 S.E. 563, 214 N.C. 7, 1938 N.C. LEXIS 243 (N.C. 1938).

Opinion

Stacy, C. J.

The last payment of compensation under the previous award was made in February, 1936, and the petition for review on *9 ground of change in condition was filed 5 January, 1937. This is within the year as contemplated by section 46 of the 'Workmen’s Compensation Act, ch. 120, Public Laws 1929, as amended by ch. 274, Public Laws 1931, which provides that “no such review shall be made after twelve months from the date of the last payment of compensation pursuant to an award under this article.” N. C. Code of 1935 (Michie), 8081 (bbb); Lee v. Rose’s Stores, 205 N. C., 310, 171 S. E., 87.

The finding is that plaintiff has experienced a change in his condition since the last award, growing out of the injury of 3 October, 1934, and that he has been totally disabled since January, 1937. It is a reasonable inference, if not a direct finding of the hearing Commissioner, approved by the Eull Commission, that plaintiff’s total disability occurred 1 January, 1937, as compensation payments were ordered to be resumed as of that date.

There is ample evidence to support the finding of a change in plaintiff’s condition as contemplated by the act. Smith v. Swift & Co., 212 N. C., 608; Butts v. Montague Bros., 208 N. C., 186, 179 S. E., 799. There is also evidence which would have supported a contrary finding. Allen v. Mottley Const. Co., 170 S. E. (Va.), 412. With this conflict, however, we are not concerned. It is fully established by numerous decisions that the findings of fact made by the Industrial Commission, if supported by competent evidence, are conclusive on appeal, and they are not subject to review by the courts. Carlton v. Bernhardt-Seagle Co., 210 N. C., 655, 188 S. E., 77; Swink v. Asbestos Co., ibid., 303, 186 S. E., 258; Bryson v. Lumber Co., 204 N. C., 664, 169 S. E., 276.

It results, therefore, that the judgment must be upheld.

Affirmed.

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

Related

McLean v. Roadway Express, Inc.
296 S.E.2d 456 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1982)
Tucker v. FCX Inc.
245 S.E.2d 77 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1978)
West v. JP Stevens Company
183 S.E.2d 876 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1971)
Godwin Ex Rel. Godwin v. Swift & Co.
155 S.E.2d 157 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1967)
Baldwin v. Amazon Cotton Mills
117 S.E.2d 718 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1961)
Pratt v. Central Upholstery Co.
115 S.E.2d 27 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1960)
Allen v. Benson Outdoor Advertising Co.
112 S.E.2d 722 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1960)
English Mica Co. v. Avery County Board of Education
100 S.E.2d 72 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1957)
Smith v. Mecklenburg County Chapter American Red Cross
95 S.E.2d 559 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1956)
Paris v. Carolina Builders Corporation
92 S.E.2d 405 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1956)
Harris v. ASHEVILLE CONTRACTING COMPANY
83 S.E.2d 802 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1954)
Tucker v. Lowdermilk
63 S.E.2d 109 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1951)
Smith v. . Duke University
14 S.E.2d 643 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1941)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
197 S.E. 563, 214 N.C. 7, 1938 N.C. LEXIS 243, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/knight-v-ford-body-co-nc-1938.