{
  "id": 8551033,
  "name": "ROBERT B. ASHLEY, Employee, v. RENT-A-CAR COMPANY, INC., Employer and COSMOPOLITAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Carrier",
  "name_abbreviation": "Ashley v. Rent-A-Car Co.",
  "decision_date": "1968-04-17",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "171",
  "last_page": "173",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "1 N.C. App. 171"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "155 S.E. 2d 755",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "271 N.C. 76",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8562491
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/271/0076-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "157 S.E. 2d 378",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "271 N.C. 702",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8566667
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/271/0702-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "46 S.E. 2d 109",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "228 N.C. 447",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8626853
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/228/0447-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "6 S.E. 2d 38",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "216 N.C. 554",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8608950
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/216/0554-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "114 S.E. 2d 812",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "252 N.C. 615",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8624931
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/252/0615-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "8 S.E. 2d 484",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "217 N.C. 428",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8609189
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/217/0428-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "144 So. 2d 799",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "So. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        9879767
      ],
      "year": 1962,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/so2d/144/0799-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "134 So. 2d 244",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "So. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        9862843
      ],
      "year": 1961,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/so2d/134/0244-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 302,
    "char_count": 4641,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.605,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.676830387708631e-08,
      "percentile": 0.35670438701252466
    },
    "sha256": "793947750544e9aa5f433dddb6df2c02ac54d2a8a96fb602f9676f42524e6e0d",
    "simhash": "1:606481db1f99d24f",
    "word_count": 774
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:11:01.747951+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Morris and Parker, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "ROBERT B. ASHLEY, Employee, v. RENT-A-CAR COMPANY, INC., Employer and COSMOPOLITAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Carrier."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Campbell, J.\nThe question presented is whether the Industrial Commission committed error in ordering that $1,400 of counsel fees for plaintiff\u2019s counsel be paid by defendants as part of the costs pursuant to G.S. 97-88.\nAfter the decision of the Supreme Court, counsel for the employee petitioned the Industrial Commission to tax against the insurer, as part of the costs, a reasonable fee for the services rendered the injured employee, due to the \u201cpersistent appeals from the award of the North Carolina Industrial Commission.\u201d\nThe petition itemized in detail the various services rendered and the time consumed. Arguments were held on the petition on 16 October 1967 and thereafter the Commission entered an order approving counsel fees in the amount of $2,400. Of this sum, $1,400 was ordered paid by the defendant insurer as a part of the court costs pursuant to the provisions of G.S. 97-88.\nIt is from this order that the present appeal comes.\nThere is no controversy as to the reasonableness of the fee allowed.\nThis case presents a hardship situation with persistent appeals by the insurer from the Hearing Commissioner to the Full Commission, to the Superior Court, and to the Supreme Court. On each appeal, the insurer was unsuccessful, but the fact remains that the award throughout has been for medical treatments and at no time a \u201cmoney allowance payable to the employee.\u201d\nUnder a differently worded Statute, the Florida Court has held that the award of compensation is not a prerequisite to the allowance of attorney fees and the only requirement is \u201cthe successful prosecution of his claim\u201d by the injured employee. Ringling Bros.-Barnum & Bailey Combined Shows, Inc., v. Jones, 134 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 1961), and City of Miami Beach v. Schiffman, 144 So. 2d 799 (Fla. 1962).\nG.S. 97-88 authorizes reasonable attorney\u2019s fees as a part of the bill of costs, only when the decision \u201corders the insurer to make, or to continue payments of compensation to the injured employee.\u201d\nWhether medical expenses, such as hospitals, doctors, and nurses, are to be considered within the term \u201ccompensation\u201d has previously been decided and is no longer an open question. In the case of Morris v. Chevrolet Company, 217 N.C. 428, 8 S.E. 2d 484, the Court held: \u201cThe term \u2018compensation\u2019 means the money allowance payable to an employee or to his dependents, etc. The statute included funeral benefits, but omitted hospitals, doctors, and nurses.\u201d This case conclusively held that medical expenses, such as hospitals, doctors, and nurses, are not to be considered as \u201ccompensation.\u201d See also Ivey v. Prison Department, 252 N.C. 615, 114 S.E. 2d 812; Thompson v. Railroad, 216 N.C. 554, 6 S.E. 2d 38; Whitted v. Palmer-Bee Co., 228 N.C. 447, 46 S.E. 2d 109.\nIn the absence of an order requiring \u201cthe insurer to make, or to continue payments of compensation to the injured employee,\u201d the Commission has no authority to award attorney\u2019s fees paid by the insurer.\nThe North Carolina Industrial Commission is a creature of the General Assembly and has a special or limited jurisdiction created by Statute and confined to its terms. Bowman v. Chair Company, 271 N.C. 702, 157 S.E. 2d 378.\nThe Statute does not permit the award of attorney\u2019s fees in this instance and, no matter the laudatory purpose involved, this Court is bound by the doctrine lex scripta est.\nReversed.\nMorris and Parker, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Campbell, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Hofler, Mount <& White. by Richard M. Hutson, II, for plaintiff appellee.",
      "Spears, Spears, Barnes & Baker for defendant appellants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ROBERT B. ASHLEY, Employee, v. RENT-A-CAR COMPANY, INC., Employer and COSMOPOLITAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Carrier.\n(Filed 17 April 1968)\n1. Master and Servant \u00a7 96\u2014\nG.S. 97-88 authorizes the Industrial Commission to award a fee to claimant\u2019s attorney as a part of the costs of an appeal by the insurer only when its decision orders the insurer to make or to continue payments of compensation to the claimant.\n3. Same\u2014\nThe Industrial Commission is not authorized by G.S. 97-88 to award fees to a claimant\u2019s attorney as part of the costs where its decision relates only to an award of medical and hospital expenses, since such expenses do not constitute compensation under the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act.\n3. Master and Servant \u00a7 85\u2014\nThe Industrial Commission is a creature of the General Assembly and its jurisdiction is limited to that prescribed by statute.\nThis is an appeal from an order of the Industrial Commission filed 6 November 1967.\nThe facts and background of this case are fully set out in the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 271 N.C. 76, 155 S.E. 2d 755, and all of the facts will not be repeated.\nHofler, Mount <& White. by Richard M. Hutson, II, for plaintiff appellee.\nSpears, Spears, Barnes & Baker for defendant appellants."
  },
  "file_name": "0171-01",
  "first_page_order": 193,
  "last_page_order": 195
}