Richardson v. Maxim Healthcare/Allegis Group
| Decision Date | 06 April 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. 102A08-2.,102A08-2. |
| Citation | Richardson v. Maxim Healthcare/Allegis Group, 676 S.E.2d 472, 363 N.C. 260 (N.C. 2009) |
| Parties | Penny M. Rumple RICHARDSON, Employee, Plaintiff v. MAXIM HEALTHCARE/ALLEGIS GROUP, Employer and Kemper Insurance Company/American Protection Insurance c/o Specialty Risk Services, Carrier, Defendants. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
ORDER
Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 15th day of January 2009 for rehearing of the decision of this Court pursuant to Rule 31,N.C. Rules of Appellate Procedure, the following order was...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 7-day Trial
128 cases
-
Newnam v. New Hanover Regional Medical Center
...than to determine whether the record contains any evidence tending to support the finding.” Anderson, 265 N.C. at 434 , 144 S.E.2d at 274 .
Richardson v. Maxim Healthcare/Allegis Group, 362 N.C. 657 , 660, 669 S.E.2d 582 , 584 (2008). “The facts found by the Commission are conclusive upon appeal to this Court when they are supported by competent evidence, even when there is evidence to support contrary findings.” Pittman v. International Paper Co., 132 N.C. App. 151... -
Espinosa v. Tradesource, Inc.
...of the Commission is “limited to consideration of whether competent evidence supports the Commission’s findings of fact and whether the findings support the Commission’s conclusions of law. ”
Richardson v. Maxim Healthcare/Allegis Grp., 362 N.C. 657 , 660, 669 S.E.2d 582 , 584 (2008)(citations omitted). The Commission’s conclusions of law are fully reviewable on appeal. Hilliard v. Apex Cabinet Co., 305 N.C. 593 , 290 S.E.2d 682 (1982). “If the finding of fact is essentially a conclusion... -
Morgan v. Morgan Motor Co. of Albemarle
...quotation marks omitted). Our review is purely “limited to consideration of whether competent evidence supports the Commission’s findings of fact and whether the findings support the Commission’s conclusions of law.”
Richardson, 362 N.C. at 660 , 669 S.E.2d at 584Thus, while the dissent discusses the doctrine of joint employment — which provides that two employers may be jointly liable for workers’ compensation benefits to the same employee if he is simultaneously performing servicesIndustrial Commission is “limited to consideration of whether competent evidence supports the Commission’s findings of fact and whether the findings support the Commission’s conclusions of law.” Richardson v. Maxim Healthcare/Allegis Grp., 362 N.C. 657 , 660, 669 S.E.2d 582 , 584 (2008). With regard to review of the Commission’s findings of fact, this Court’s “duty goes no further than to determine whether the record contains any evidence tending to support the finding[s].” Id. (citation660, 669 S.E.2d 582 , 584 (2008). With regard to review of the Commission’s findings of fact, this Court’s “duty goes no further than to determine whether the record contains any evidence tending to support the finding[s].” Id.(citation and quotation marks omitted). The findings of fact made by the Commission are conclusive on appeal if supported by competent evidence even if there is also evidence that would support a contrary finding. Nale v. Ethan Allen, 199 N.C. App. 511 ,... -
Gibbs v. Roca's Welding, LLC
...and whether the findings support the Commission's conclusions of law. This [C]ourt's duty goes no further than to determine whether the record contains any evidence tending to support the finding."
Richardson v. Maxim Healthcare/Allegis Grp. , 362 N.C. 657, 660, 669 S.E.2d 582, 584 (2008)(citations and internal quotations omitted). Our Court reviews the Commission's conclusions of law de novo. Conyers v. New Hanover Cty. Sch. , 188 N.C. App. 253, 255, 654 S.E.2d 745, 748 (2008).B....
Get Started for Free