Sanders v. Broyhill Furniture Industries

• Decision Date: 17 November 1998
• Docket Number: No. COA97-1445.,COA97-1445.
• Citation: 507 S.E.2d 568,131 NC App. 383
• Court: North Carolina Court of Appeals
• Parties: Kenneth Ralph SANDERS, Employee, Plaintiff, v. BROYHILL FURNITURE INDUSTRIES, Insured (Trigon Administrators, Administering Agent), Employer, Defendant.

507 S.E.2d 568

131 NC App. 383

Kenneth Ralph SANDERS, Employee, Plaintiff, v. BROYHILL FURNITURE INDUSTRIES, Insured (Trigon Administrators, Administering Agent), Employer, Defendant.

No. COA97-1445.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

November 17, 1998.

N. Douglas Beach, Jr., Lenoir, for plaintiff-appellee.

Hedrick, Eatman, Gardner & Kincheloe, L.L.P. by J.A. Gardner, III and Erica B. Lewis, Charlotte, for defendant-appellant. EAGLES, Chief Judge.

First we consider whether the full Commission failed to give proper deference to the deputy commissioner's credibility determination. Defendant argues that the full Commission did not acknowledge the general rule that deputy commissioners are in a better position to judge credibility as mandated by Sanders v. Broyhill. Defendant further argues that plaintiff's ignorance of workers' compensation law is not a valid justification for finding plaintiff credible.

We reaffirm our holding in Sanders v. Broyhill Furniture Industries, 124 N.C.App. 637, 640-41, 478 S.E.2d 223, 225-26 (1996), disc. review denied, 346 N.C. 180, 486 S.E.2d 208 (1997). In Sanders we held that

prior to reversing the deputy commissioner's credibility findings on review of a cold record, the full Commission must, as it did in Pollard, demonstrate in its opinion that it considered the applicability of the general rule which encourages deference to the hearing officer who is the best judge of credibility.... What we require today is documentation that sufficient consideration was paid to the fact that credibility may be best judged by a first-hand observer of the witness when that observation was the only one. In doing so, we encourage the full Commission to include findings showing why the deputy commissioner's credibility determination should be rejected.

Id. But cf. Holcomb v. Pepsi Cola Co., 128 N.C.App. 323, 325, 494 S.E.2d 609, 610 (1998).

Here in finding of fact number five, the full Commission found

5. The Deputy Commissioner who initially heard this matter found plaintiff's sworn testimony regarding the cause and extent of his injury not to have been credible. The Full Commission, however, finds to the contrary, that plaintiff's testimony relating to his injury and its cause was credible. The Full Commission's finding on this issue is based, in part, on plaintiff's lack of understanding in general of the workers' compensation system and with the specific requirements related to reporting his injury and filing his claim.

Additionally, the Full Commission finds that any inconsistencies in plaintiff's testimony are not indicative of any deception on his part, and further, are reasonably explained given his unfamiliarity with the workers' compensation system and the nature of the proceedings before the Industrial Commission.

The full Commission met the Sanders standard. The Commission recognized and considered that the deputy commissioner found plaintiff not to be credible but disagreed with the deputy's credibility determination. The Commission went on to explain the rationale behind its decision. The Commission stated that it was plaintiff's unfamiliarity with the workers' compensation system and not a propensity to lie that led to the inconsistencies within plaintiff's testimony. After reviewing the record on appeal, it is clear that there was competent evidence to support the full Commission's findings of fact and conclusions of law. Accordingly, the full Commission's decision to reverse the deputy commissioner's decision is affirmed.

Next we consider whether the Industrial Commission erred in finding that plaintiff's failure to timely file a Form 18 was reasonably excused. Defendant contends that it had no notice of plaintiff's alleged work injury until the Form 18 was filed in September 1992. Defendant argues that it was prejudiced because the employer was unable to investigate the alleged work accident on 17 December 1991 and was unable to direct plaintiff's medical care. After careful review, we disagree.

In reviewing a decision of the Industrial Commission, we are limited to two questions: 1) whether there is any competent evidence before the Commission to support its findings of fact; and 2) whether the findings of fact justify the Commission's conclusions of law. Guy v. Burlington Industries, 74 N.C.App. 685, 689, 329 S.E.2d 685, 687 (1985).

Here, the Industrial Commission found in finding...