Rooks v. IDEAL CEMENT COMPANY

175 S.E.2d 324, 9 N.C. App. 57, 1970 N.C. App. LEXIS 1280
CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina
DecidedJuly 15, 1970
Docket705IC247
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 175 S.E.2d 324 (Rooks v. IDEAL CEMENT COMPANY) 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
Rooks v. IDEAL CEMENT COMPANY, 175 S.E.2d 324, 9 N.C. App. 57, 1970 N.C. App. LEXIS 1280 (N.C. Ct. App. 1970).

Opinion

Brock, J.

Appellant’s main assignment of error is that the findings of fact and conclusions of law and award as made by Deputy Commissioner Delbridge and affirmed by the Full Commission are not supported by competent evidence. More specifically, appellant contends that Deputy Commissioner Delbridge’s finding of fact No. 4 was based upon a letter of one Dr. Dineen which was hearsay and incompetent. Consequently, he argues that the opinion and award of Deputy Commissioner Delbridge was not based on competent evidence.

Appellant stipulated that Dr. Dineen’s letter could be used in evidence; he is therefore in no position to complain that it was so used. This assignment of error is without merit.

Appellant also argues that where the medical opinions of two physicians conflict as to the condition of the claimant in a workmen’s compensation claim the conflict should always be resolved in favor of the claimant rather than against him. Appellant’s argument completely overlooks the necessity for someone to pass upon the credibility of witnesses. The Industrial Commission has the duty and authority to resolve conflicts in testimony whether medical or not. If the findings made by the Commission are supported by competent evidence they must be *59 accepted as final truth. Petty v. Associated Transport, 4 N.C. App. 361, 167 S.E. 2d 38.

The order appealed from is

Affirmed.

Britt and Hedrick, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Crowder v. Preston Trucking Co.
North Carolina Industrial Commission, 2002
Jones v. Wilson Stores
North Carolina Industrial Commission, 2002
Bennett v. Progressive Furniture Company
North Carolina Industrial Commission, 2002
Hill v. the Summit
North Carolina Industrial Commission, 2002
Laughter v. Midway Lumber Supply Company
North Carolina Industrial Commission, 1998
Wisnieski v. Vine Veterinary Hospital
North Carolina Industrial Commission, 1997
Milazzo v. Firestone Fibers Textiles
North Carolina Industrial Commission, 1997
Bullard v. Family Dollar Stores
North Carolina Industrial Commission, 1996
Morrow v. Pelton Crane
North Carolina Industrial Commission, 1996
Copeland v. Morton's Brick and Block
North Carolina Industrial Commission, 1996
Mayfield v. Beverly Enterprises
North Carolina Industrial Commission, 1995
Jackson v. Roses Department Stores
North Carolina Industrial Commission, 1995
Nipper v. Carver's Machine Works
North Carolina Industrial Commission, 1995
Dee v. Freightliner Corporation
North Carolina Industrial Commission, 1995
Wagoner v. Douglas Battery Manufacturing Co.
341 S.E.2d 120 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1986)
Cauble v. MacKe Co.
338 S.E.2d 320 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1986)
Lankford v. Dacotah Cotton Mills
287 S.E.2d 471 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1982)
Blalock v. ROBERTS COMPANY
183 S.E.2d 827 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1971)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
175 S.E.2d 324, 9 N.C. App. 57, 1970 N.C. App. LEXIS 1280, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rooks-v-ideal-cement-company-ncctapp-1970.