Pierce v. AUTOCLAVE BLOCK CORPORATION

218 S.E.2d 510, 27 N.C. App. 276, 1975 N.C. App. LEXIS 1818
CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina
DecidedOctober 15, 1975
Docket7519IC434
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 218 S.E.2d 510 (Pierce v. AUTOCLAVE BLOCK CORPORATION) 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
Pierce v. AUTOCLAVE BLOCK CORPORATION, 218 S.E.2d 510, 27 N.C. App. 276, 1975 N.C. App. LEXIS 1818 (N.C. Ct. App. 1975).

Opinion

BRITT, Judge.

Plaintiff’s assignments of error relate to the commission’s determination that plaintiff failed to prove reasonable excuse for not giving written notice as required by G.S. 97-22, and that defendant employer was prejudiced by the failure of plaintiff to give written notice within 30 days following the accident. We find no merit in the assignments.

G.S. 97-22 provides in pertinent part: “ . . . but no compensation shall be payable unless such written notice is given within 30 days after the occurrence of the accident or death, unless reasonable excuse is made to the satisfaction of the Industrial Commission for not giving such notice and the Commission is satisfied that the employer has not been prejudiced thereby.”

The quoted statute clearly requires written notice by an injured employee to his employer within 30 days after the occurrence of the accident or death unless the commission is satisfied of two things: (1) that there was reasonable excuse for not giving the written notice, and (2) the employer was not prejudiced thereby.

*279 We think it was incumbent on plaintiff to show reasonable excuse for failing to provide written notice. Garmon v. Tridair Industries, 14 N.C. App. 574, 188 S.E. 2d 523 (1972). This he failed to do. With respect to lack of prejudice to defendant employer, for plaintiff to prevail on this point required a positive finding that defendant employer had not been prejudiced by failure of plaintiff to provide written notice. We think the commission was fully justified in declining to make that finding.

For the reasons stated, the order appealed from is

Affirmed.

Judges Parker and Clark concur.

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

Related

Jacobs v. N.C. Dept. of Correction
North Carolina Industrial Commission, 2007
Chavis v. TLC Home Health Care
616 S.E.2d 403 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2005)
Watts v. Borg Warner Automotive, Inc.
613 S.E.2d 715 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2005)
Lakey v. U.S. Airways, Inc.
573 S.E.2d 703 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
218 S.E.2d 510, 27 N.C. App. 276, 1975 N.C. App. LEXIS 1818, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pierce-v-autoclave-block-corporation-ncctapp-1975.