{ "id": 8556062, "name": "JAY LEE WALLACE, Employee, Plaintiff v. WATKINS-CAROLINA EXPRESS, INC., Employer, and AMERICAN MUTUAL LIABILITY INSURANCE CO., Carrier, Defendants", "name_abbreviation": "Wallace v. Watkins-Carolina Express, Inc.", "decision_date": "1971-06-23", "docket_number": "No. 7119IC400", "first_page": "556", "last_page": "560", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "11 N.C. App. 556" } ], "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": "70 S.E. 2d 706", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "235 N.C. 602", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8626215 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/235/0602-01" ] }, { "cite": "132 S.E. 2d 747", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "260 N.C. 413", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8574993 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/260/0413-01" ] }, { "cite": "85 S.E. 2d 596", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "241 N.C. 448", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8612018 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/241/0448-01" ] }, { "cite": "162 S.E. 2d 619", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "2 N.C. App. 126", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8551409 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/2/0126-01" ] }, { "cite": "64 S.E. 2d 265", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "233 N.C. 372", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8608280 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/233/0372-01" ] }, { "cite": "144 S.E. 2d 272", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "265 N.C. 431", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8575582 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/265/0431-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 467, "char_count": 9254, "ocr_confidence": 0.587, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.2240919645422112e-07, "percentile": 0.603359307820649 }, "sha256": "ac6c8604f3e2ec1e7a5308dd8fc2efb7da44fb0f599e036c0bc90ed12a145e59", "simhash": "1:d9ef2fa35d3e5236", "word_count": 1487 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:10:46.806740+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges Campbell and Britt concur." ], "parties": [ "JAY LEE WALLACE, Employee, Plaintiff v. WATKINS-CAROLINA EXPRESS, INC., Employer, and AMERICAN MUTUAL LIABILITY INSURANCE CO., Carrier, Defendants" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "GRAHAM, Judge.\nPlaintiff\u2019s evidence was sufficient to support a finding that he suffered a compensable injury. Even so, the Commission was not bound to accept plaintiff\u2019s evidence as true or to infer from it that plaintiff had suffered a compensable injury; for the Commission is the sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony. Anderson v. Construction Co., 265 N.C. 431, 144 S.E. 2d 272. The Commission is not required to accept even the uncontroverted testimony of a witness. Anderson v. Motor Co., 233 N.C. 372, 64 S.E. 2d 265; Morgan v. Furniture Industries, Inc., 2 N.C. App. 126, 162 S.E. 2d 619.\nHowever, where affirmative findings of fact upon which the Commission bases a decision are unsupported by any competent evidence, such findings must be set aside. 5 Strong, N.C. Index 2d, Master and Servant, \u00a7 96, pp. 488, 489. Plaintiff assigns1 as error two findings made by the Commission which are unsupported by any competent evidence.\nThe Commission found \u201c [p] laintiff had been involved in a vehicle accident on April 27, 1967, for which he received treatment by Dr. William B. Jones of Greenville, South Carolina for injuries to his right leg, left long finger and skull.\u201d This finding was obviously based upon a report of Dr. Jones, forwarded to the Commission by defendant\u2019s attorney. The report was apparently considered by the Commission after plaintiff\u2019s attorney agreed in writing that reports of certain doctors could be admitted with the \u201cquestion of relevancy\u201d being left to the Commission. It does not appear in the record that plaintiff had been treated by Dr. Jones; nor does it appear why the testimony of Dr. Jones was considered relevant by defendant. At any rate, Dr. Jones\u2019 report has as its subject one Ray Wallace of Greenville, South Carolina. Defendant does not dispute the fact that Ray Wallace, age 36 of Greenville, South Carolina, is not the plaintiff, Jay Lee Wallace, who is considerably older and from North Carolina. The report, which shows on its face that it concerns a subject other than plaintiff, was not relevant and therefore it was incompetent to support the Commission\u2019s finding with respect to injuries suffered by plaintiff in an unrelated accident.\nThe second finding attacked by plaintiff is that \u201cPlaintiff continued to haul for Watkins-Carolina, using his own tractor, beginning May 30, 1967 and continuing for about six weeks.\u201d The only evidence concerning when plaintiff returned to driving his truck was his testimony that \u201c[o]ne week after the accident [of 29 May 1967] was when I went back on the truck for the first time.\u201d Hence, a positive finding to the effect plaintiff returned to work the day following his accident is unsupported by the evidence.\nDefendant argues that although these findings are erroneous, they are not crucial to the Commission\u2019s decision and should therefore be disregarded. The difficulty with this approach is that we are unable to say to what extent, if any, these findings influenced the Commission\u2019s final conclusion that any injuries sustained by the plaintiff were minor, requiring no medical treatment and causing no disability.\nWe further note that the Commission found that Dr. Weaver was of the opinion plaintiff had sustained a sprain of his neck and lumbosacral spine and had him hospitalized from 25 July 1967 to 4 August 1967; also, that Dr. Carr had plaintiff hospitalized from 26 October 1967 to 17 November 1967 for conservative treatment of his sprained back. A crucial question is whether these sprains resulted from the accident in question. If they did, the Commission\u2019s decision is legally unsound. In any event, a finding with respect to this determinative question has not been made. While it is not necessary that the Commission make a finding as to each fact presented by the evidence, Guest v. Iron & Metal Co., 241 N.C. 448, 85 S.E. 2d 596, specific findings must be made with respect to the crucial facts, upon which the question of plaintiff\u2019s right to compensation depends. Pardue v. Tire Co., 260 N.C. 413, 132 S.E. 2d 747; Thomason v. Cab Co., 235 N.C. 602, 70 S.E. 2d 706; Morgan v. Furniture Industries, Inc., supra.\nFor the reasons given the case is remanded and the Industrial Commission is directed to make new findings of fact, based on the competent evidence in the record and determinative of all questions at issue.\nError and remanded.\nJudges Campbell and Britt concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "GRAHAM, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Williams, Willeford & Boger by John Hugh Williams for plaintiff appellant.", "Hedrick, McKnight, Parham, Helms, Warley & Jolly by Philip R. Hedrick and Thomas A. McNeely for defendant ap-pellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "JAY LEE WALLACE, Employee, Plaintiff v. WATKINS-CAROLINA EXPRESS, INC., Employer, and AMERICAN MUTUAL LIABILITY INSURANCE CO., Carrier, Defendants\nNo. 7119IC400\n(Filed 23 June 1971)\n1. Master and Servant \u00a7 93\u2014 workmen\u2019s compensation \u2014 credibility of witnesses \u2014 duties of Industrial Commission\nAlthough plaintiff\u2019s evidence was sufficient to support a finding that he suffered a compensable injury, the Industrial Commission is not bound to accept plaintiff\u2019s evidence as true or to infer from it that plaintiff had suffered a compensable injury, for the Commission is the sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses and the- weight to be given their testimony.\n2. Master and Servant \u00a7 93\u2014 workmen\u2019s compensation \u2014 uncontroverted testimony\nThe Industrial Commission is not required to accept even the un-controverted testimony of a witness.\n3. Master and Servant \u00a7 96\u2014 workmen\u2019s compensation \u2014 findings unsupported by evidence\nWhere affirmative findings of fact upon which the Commission bases a decision are unsupported by any competent evidence,, such findings must be set aside.\n4. Master and Servant \u00a7 94\u2014 workmen\u2019s compensation \u2014 medical report unrelated to plaintiff\nMedical report which shows on its face that it concerns a subject other than plaintiff was not relevant and was incompetent to support the Industrial Commission\u2019s finding with respect to injuries suffered by plaintiff in an unrelated accident.\n5. Master and Servant \u00a7 94\u2014 workmen\u2019s compensation \u2014 finding unsupported by evidence\nFinding by the Industrial Commission that plaintiff returned to work the day following his accident was unsupported by the evidence.\n6. Master and Servant \u00a7 94\u2014 denial of compensation \u2014 findings unsupported by evidence \u2014 failure to make crucial findings\nIndustrial Commission\u2019s conclusion that any injuries sustained by plaintiff were minor, requiring no medical treatment and causing no disability, is set aside where some of the Commission\u2019s findings of fact were unsupported by the evidence, and the Commission failed to make crucial findings as to whether back sprains for which plaintiff was hospitalized on two occasions some months after the accident in question resulted from such accident.\nAppeal by plaintiff from the North Carolina Industrial Commission opinion and order of 27 February 1971.\nThe Industrial Commission denied compensation for injuries sustained by plaintiff in a truck accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. Denial was based upon the conclusion of the Deputy Commissioner, adopted by the Full Commission upon appeal, that \u201cany injuries plaintiff sustained were minor in nature, required no medical treatment, and did not cause plaintiff to sustain any temporary total disability or any permanent disability.\u201d\nPlaintiff\u2019s evidence tended to show that he was injured 29 May 1967 in a collision which occurred while he was driving his employer\u2019s truck in New Jersey. Plaintiff returned to North Carolina without receiving medical attention. He experienced pain and remained at home about a week, remaining in bed most of this time. On 25 July 1967 plaintiff consulted his physician, Dr. Hamrick, who referred him to Drs. Sellers and Weaver, orthopedic specialists. Dr. Weaver was of the opinion plaintiff had sustained a sprain of his neck and lumbosacral spine and ordered him to the hospital where he remained from 27 July 1967 through 4 August 1967. Plaintiff was subsequently referred to Dr. Carr at the Miller Clinic in Charlotte. In a letter received into evidence by stipulation, Dr. Carr reported: \u201cThis patient had an injury on May 29, 1967. As a result of his painful phenomena, I admitted him to the Charlotte Rehabilitation Hospital on October 26, 1967, and treated him for a sprained back, aggravating a pre-existing spodylarthrosis and arthro-fibrosis of the lumbar spine with surgical ankylosis. After a period of bed rest and conservative treatment, there was some improvement in the situation, and he was discharged on November 17, 1967, wearing a back brace.\u201d\nPlaintiff related a history of previous back trouble beginning with a slipped disc in 1951. He received a spinal fusion at the Miller Clinic in 1953 and a refusion about three years later. Plaintiff stated that he was dismissed from the care of Miller Clinic in May of 1960, and he denied any difficulty from that time until the accident of 29 May 1967.\nPlaintiff appealed to the Full Commission from the order of the Hearing Commissioner denying recovery. The Full Commission adopted as its own the opinion and award of the Hearing Commissioner and plaintiff appealed to this court.\nWilliams, Willeford & Boger by John Hugh Williams for plaintiff appellant.\nHedrick, McKnight, Parham, Helms, Warley & Jolly by Philip R. Hedrick and Thomas A. McNeely for defendant ap-pellee." }, "file_name": "0556-01", "first_page_order": 580, "last_page_order": 584 }