McRae v. Wall

Supreme Court of North Carolina

McRae v. Wall

133 S.E.2d 220, 260 N.C. 576, 1963 N.C. LEXIS 771

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedNovember 27, 1963

Docket458

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 133 S.E.2d 220 (McRae v. Wall) 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

McRae v. Wall, 133 S.E.2d 220, 260 N.C. 576, 1963 N.C. LEXIS 771 (N.C. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

HiggiNS, J.

When called upon to review the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and awards of tihe North Carolina Industrial Commission in .compensation oases, tlhe courts determine ais a matter of law whether the facts found support the Commission’s conclusions, and whether they justify the awards. However, in passing on challenged findings of fact, the courts must approve tlhe findings if -they are supported by competent evidence. Hence the Court may set aside a finding of fact only upon the ground it lacks evidentiary support. Blalock v. Durham, 244 N.C. 208, 92 S.E. 2d 758; Watson v. Harris Clay Co., 242 N.C. 763, 89 S.E. 2d 465; Creighton v. Snipes, 227 N.C. 90, 40 S.E. 2d 612.

We have no difficulty in finding in the -record evidence to- support the finding that claimant sustained by 'accident a compensable injury to his hand. The award on that -account is sustained. However, evidence is lacking to support the finding that claimant sustained & disfiguring scar five -inches long, one-eighth-inoh wide, across the side of bis head above his left ear. Claimant himself testified the skin was not broken on his head. “The hair began- to leave my head >and the scar to ish'ow two or three weeks later. . . . The sear 'did not come ’all -at one time. I did not use any applications . . . just rubbed it with turpentine.”

The claimant’s doctor -testified ¡the head injury consisted of -a, knot about the size of -a quarter which had .subsided when he saw him- again on© week -after the accident. The Skin was not broken. “I do not recall any injury which would result in- the soar he now hais . . . the lump I saw could not have resulted i-n the loss of hair. Th-ils soar looks as if the skin was cut or broken 'and sewed up. I did not find 'any such condition when I first examined him.”

Because of lack of evidence to- sustain it, we must strike -the Commission’s Finding No-. 4. The evidence -simply fails to- show the disfiguring soar was tire result of the accident.

The proceeding will be remanded to the North Carolina Industrial Commission with -direction to -strike -both its Finding -of Fact No-. 4 and *579 the 'award of $250.00 based thereon. As thus modified, the findings and ¡award are affirmed.

Modified 'and affirmed.

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

HiggiNS, J.

When called upon to review the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and awards of tihe North Carolina Industrial Commission in .compensation oases, tlhe courts determine ais a matter of law whether the facts found support the Commission’s conclusions, and whether they justify the awards. However, in passing on challenged findings of fact, the courts must approve tlhe findings if -they are supported by competent evidence. Hence the Court may set aside a finding of fact only upon the ground it lacks evidentiary support. Blalock v. Durham, 244 N.C. 208, 92 S.E. 2d 758; Watson v. Harris Clay Co., 242 N.C. 763, 89 S.E. 2d 465; Creighton v. Snipes, 227 N.C. 90, 40 S.E. 2d 612.

We have no difficulty in finding in the -record evidence to- support the finding that claimant sustained by 'accident a compensable injury to his hand. The award on that -account is sustained. However, evidence is lacking to support the finding that claimant sustained & disfiguring scar five -inches long, one-eighth-inoh wide, across the side of bis head above his left ear. Claimant himself testified the skin was not broken on his head. “The hair began- to leave my head >and the scar to ish'ow two or three weeks later. . . . The sear 'did not come ’all -at one time. I did not use any applications . . . just rubbed it with turpentine.”

The claimant’s doctor -testified ¡the head injury consisted of -a, knot about the size of -a quarter which had .subsided when he saw him- again on© week -after the accident. The Skin was not broken. “I do not recall any injury which would result in- the soar he now hais . . . the lump I saw could not have resulted i-n the loss of hair. Th-ils soar looks as if the skin was cut or broken 'and sewed up. I did not find 'any such condition when I first examined him.”

Because of lack of evidence to- sustain it, we must strike -the Commission’s Finding No-. 4. The evidence -simply fails to- show the disfiguring soar was tire result of the accident.

The proceeding will be remanded to the North Carolina Industrial Commission with -direction to -strike -both its Finding -of Fact No-. 4 and *579 the 'award of $250.00 based thereon. As thus modified, the findings and ¡award are affirmed.

Modified 'and affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

133 S.E.2d 220, 260 N.C. 576, 1963 N.C. LEXIS 771, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcrae-v-wall-nc-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack