McRae v. Wall
| Citation | 133 S.E.2d 220,260 N.C. 576 |
| Decision Date | 27 November 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 458,458 |
| Parties | William W. McRAE, Employee, v. Claude WALL, Employer, and Nationwide: Mutual Insurance Company, Carrier. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Page & Page, by John T. Page, Jr., Rockingham, for plaintiff employee, appellee.
I. Weisner Farmer, Raleigh, for defendants, appellants.
When called upon to review the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and awards of the North Carolina Industrial Commission in compensation cases, the courts determine as a matter of law whether the facts found support the Commission's conclusions, and whether they justify the awards. However, in passing on challenged findings of fact, the courts must approve the findings if they are supported by competent evidence. Hence the Court may set aside a finding of fact only upon the ground it lacks evidentiary support. Blalock v. Durham, 244 N.C. 208, 92 S.E.2d 758; Watson v. Harris Clay Co., 242 N.C. 763, 89 S.E.2d 465; Creighton v. Snipes, 227 N.C. 90, 40 S.E.2d 612.
We have no difficulty in finding in the record evidence to support the finding that claimant sustained by accident a compensable injury to his hand. The award on that account is sustained. However, evidence is lacking to support the finding that claimant sustained a disfiguring scar five inches long, one-eighth-inch wide, across the side of his head above his left ear. Claimant himself testified the skin was not broken on his head.
The claimant's doctor testified the head injury consisted of a knot about the size of a quarter which had subsided when he saw him again one week after the accident. The skin was not broken.
Because of lack of evidence to sustain it, we must strike the Commission's Finding No. 4. The evidence simply fails to show the disfiguring scar was the result of the accident.
The proceeding will be remanded to the North Carolina Industrial Commission with direction to strike both its Finding of Fact No. 4 and the award of $250.00 based thereon. As thus modified, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Allen v. Roberts Elec. Contr.
...matter of law whether the facts found support the Commission's conclusions, and whether they justify the awards." McRae v. Wall, 260 N.C. 576, 578, 133 S.E.2d 220, 222 (1963). Here, we find that as a matter of law the facts support the Commission's conclusions and justify the award. Thus, w......
-
Holley v. Acts, Inc.
...if it lacks evidentiary support. Saunders v. Edenton Ob/Gyn Ctr., 352 N.C. 136, 140, 530 S.E.2d 62, 65 (2000); McRae v. Wall, 260 N.C. 576, 578, 133 S.E.2d 220, 222 (1963). Although the Industrial Commission is the sole judge of the credibility and the evidentiary weight to be given to witn......
-
Hawley v. Wayne Dale Const.
...of law whether the finding of facts support the Commission's conclusions, and whether they justify the awards. McRae v. Wall, 260 N.C. 576, 578, 133 S.E.2d 220, 222 (1963). The Commission's findings will not be disturbed on appeal if they are supported by competent evidence even if there is......
-
Smith v. Central Transport and Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 8010IC584
...whether such findings support its legal conclusions. Perry v. Furniture Company, 296 N.C. 88, 249 S.E.2d 397 (1978); McRae v. Wall, 260 N.C. 576, 133 S.E.2d 220 (1963). The record contains ample evidence of the employer-employee relationship. By way of example, Industrial Commission Form 19......