Richey v. Erlanger Cotton Mills
This text of 166 S.E. 584 (Richey v. Erlanger Cotton Mills) 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.
Opinion
It is provided by the North Carolina Workmen’s Compensation Act that “in all claims for compensation for hernia, or rupture, resulting from injury by accident arising out of and in the course of the employee’s employment,” certain facts must be definitely proven to the satisfaction of the Industrial Commission; otherwise, compensation cannot be awarded. In the instant case, these facts were not so proven to the satisfaction of the Commission, and for that reason compensation was denied. On respondent’s appeal from the award of the Commission to the Superior Court, the judge beard the evidence, and concluded therefrom that the five requisite facts were so proven to bis satisfaction. He thereupon remanded the proceedings to the Commission, witb direction that the Commission allow compensation. In tbis there was error.
In Ussery v. Cotton Mills, 201 N. C., 688, 161 S. E., 307, it is said: “Of course, neither this Court nor the Superior Court, upon appeal from tbe award of the Industrial Commission, can consider tbe evidence and determine therefrom what the facts are. This is a matter exclusively for the Industrial Commission.”
The statute in express language provides that no compensation shall be allowed for a hernia, unless the evidence offered at the bearing before the Industrial Commission is sufficient in the opinion of the Commission to prove definitely to the satisfaction of the Commission the five requisite facts set out in the statute. In view of tbis language, the judge of the Superior Court was without power to find the facts contrary to the conclusions of the Commission, and upon such findings set aside the award of the Commission in the instant case. The award should be affirmed. The judgment is
Reversed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
166 S.E. 584, 203 N.C. 595, 1932 N.C. LEXIS 48, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richey-v-erlanger-cotton-mills-nc-1932.