Ward v. Floors Perfect

658 S.E.2d 656, 362 N.C. 280, 2008 N.C. LEXIS 332
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided April 11, 2008·No. 339A07·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Conclusions of Law 1 and 2 contained in the Industrial Commission’s 28 October 2005 opinion and award are supported by competent evidence but are inconsistent, and the Court of Appeals inappropriately attempted to resolve the inconsistency in its decision. The Industrial Commission is best suited to resolve this discrepancy. See Harrell v. Harriet & Henderson Yams, 314 N.C. 566, 574-75, 336 S.E.2d 47, 52 (1985). Thus, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals and remand to that court with instructions to further remand this matter to the Industrial Commission for entry of a new opinion *281 and award determining whether plaintiff has undergone a change of condition affecting wage earning capacity pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 97-47.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

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

Ward v. Floors Perfect, 658 S.E.2d 656, 362 N.C. 280, 2008 N.C. LEXIS 332 (N.C. 2008).

658 S.E.2d 656 (Ward v. Floors Perfect) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Coltrane
658 S.E.2d 656 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2008)