Weidle v. Cloverdale Ford

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Weidle v. Cloverdale Ford

274 S.E.2d 263, 50 N.C. App. 555, 1981 N.C. App. LEXIS 2151

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedFebruary 3, 1981

Docket8010IC581

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 274 S.E.2d 263 (Weidle v. Cloverdale Ford) 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

Weidle v. Cloverdale Ford, 274 S.E.2d 263, 50 N.C. App. 555, 1981 N.C. App. LEXIS 2151 (N.C. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

WHICHARD, Judge.

In Lawrence v. Mill, 265 N.C. 329, 330-331, 144 S.E.2d 3, 4 (1965), the North Carolina Supreme Court, per Justice Higgins, stated:

In compensation cases the Commission finds the facts. If the findings have evidentiary support in the record, they are conclusive. However, the question whether the evidence is sufficient to support the findings is one of law to be determined by the courts.

*557 We thus review the evidence here solely to determine its sufficiency to support the findings on which plaintiffs award is based.

The totality of the evidence in this record is the testimony of plaintiff quoted in full above. That testimony, and thus the record in its entirety, is devoid of evidence to support the findings of the Commissioner which were adopted by the Full Commission. The finding based on the Commissioner’s personal observation, standing alone, is inadequate; for it affords the appellate court no basis for review.

“The Legislature has provided that the [Workers’] Compensation act shall be liberally construed but it does not permit either the Commission or the courts to hurry evidence beyond the speed which its own force generates.” Lawrence, 265 N.C. at 331, 144 S.E.2d at 4-5. There being no evidence in the record to support the finding that the injury to plaintiff’s finger resulted in “serious bodily disfigurement” within the meaning of G.S. 97-31(22), the decision of the North Carolina Industrial Commission is

Reversed.

Judges Webb and Martin (Harry C.) concur.

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

WHICHARD, Judge.

In Lawrence v. Mill, 265 N.C. 329, 330-331, 144 S.E.2d 3, 4 (1965), the North Carolina Supreme Court, per Justice Higgins, stated:

In compensation cases the Commission finds the facts. If the findings have evidentiary support in the record, they are conclusive. However, the question whether the evidence is sufficient to support the findings is one of law to be determined by the courts.

*557 We thus review the evidence here solely to determine its sufficiency to support the findings on which plaintiffs award is based.

The totality of the evidence in this record is the testimony of plaintiff quoted in full above. That testimony, and thus the record in its entirety, is devoid of evidence to support the findings of the Commissioner which were adopted by the Full Commission. The finding based on the Commissioner’s personal observation, standing alone, is inadequate; for it affords the appellate court no basis for review.

“The Legislature has provided that the [Workers’] Compensation act shall be liberally construed but it does not permit either the Commission or the courts to hurry evidence beyond the speed which its own force generates.” Lawrence, 265 N.C. at 331, 144 S.E.2d at 4-5. There being no evidence in the record to support the finding that the injury to plaintiff’s finger resulted in “serious bodily disfigurement” within the meaning of G.S. 97-31(22), the decision of the North Carolina Industrial Commission is

Reversed.

Judges Webb and Martin (Harry C.) concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

274 S.E.2d 263, 50 N.C. App. 555, 1981 N.C. App. LEXIS 2151, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weidle-v-cloverdale-ford-ncctapp-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack