Slate v. Laundry, 203 N.C. 597 (1932)

Nov. 30, 1932 · Supreme Court of North Carolina

203 N.C. 597

C. P. SLATE v. THOMASVILLE FAMILY LAUNDRY and LONDON GUARANTEE AND ACCIDENT COMPANY.

(Filed 30 November, 1932.)

(For digest see Richey v. Cotton Mills, ante, 595.)

Appeal by defendants from Harding, J., at July Term, 1932, of DayidsoN.

Reversed.

Tbis is a proceeding begun and prosecuted before tbe North Carolina Industrial Commission for an award under tbe provisions of tbe North Carolina Workmen’s Compensation Act of compensation for a hernia suffered by tbe claimant and resulting from an injury by accident which arose out of and in tbe course of bis employment by tbe respondent, Thomasville Family Laundry. Tbe London Guarantee and Accident Company is tbe carrier for tbe said respondent.

Tbe proceeding was beard by tbe Commission on tbe appeal of respondents from an award made by Commissioner Dorsett, who awarded compensation. Tbe Commission was of tbe opinion that tbe evidence offered by tbe claimant was not sufficient to show by its greater weight tbe facts with respect to tbe hernia which are required by tbe statute for an award of compensation for a bernia, and for that reason reversed tbe award of Commissioner Dorsett and denied compensation. Tbe claimant appealed from tbe award of tbe Commission to tbe Superior Court of Davidson County. At tbe bearing of tbis appeal before Harding, J.,- tbe award of tbe Commission was set aside and vacated upon tbe ground that there was error of law in said award. It was ordered that tbe proceeding be remanded - to tbe North Carolina Industrial Commission, with direction that said Commission award compensation to tbe claimant.

From tbe judgment, tbe respondents appealed to tbe Supreme Court.

F. M. Myers and H. R. Kyser for claimant.

Dalton & Pickens for respondents.

Connor, J.

Tbe judgment of tbe Superior Court in tbis proceeding is reversed on tbe authority of Richey v. Erlanger Cotton Mills, ante, 595.

Tbe statutory provisions with respect to compensation for a hernia are to tbe effect that no compensation can be allowed unless tbe five requisite facts are definitely proven to tbe satisfaction of tbe Industrial Commission. Whether or not, tbe evidence at tbe bearing of a proceeding for compensation for a bernia meets the statutory requirement is a question addressed exclusively to tbe Commission. Where there is evidence tending to prove these facts, an award of compensation made by the Commission must he affirmed on an appeal to the Superior Court; if compensation is not allowed because the evidence in the opinion of the Commission does not meet the statutory requirement, the award denying compensation must be affirmed. It is only when there was no evidence at the hearing before the Commission to support an award of compensation for a hernia, that the judge of the Superior Court has the power to set aside and vacate the award. It is only in such eases that a matter of law is involved, which may be passed upon by the judge on an appeal from the award of the Commission. The judgment in this proceeding must be

Reversed.