{
  "id": 8526309,
  "name": "CASSIE LEE BUCK, Employee v. PROCTOR & GAMBLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Employer; Self-Insurer Common Defendant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Buck v. Proctor & Gamble Manufacturing Co.",
  "decision_date": "1982-09-21",
  "docket_number": "No. 8110IC1202",
  "first_page": "804",
  "last_page": "807",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "58 N.C. App. 804"
    }
  ],
  "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": "278 S.E. 2d 268",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "52 N.C. App. 88",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        12170012
      ],
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/52/0088-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "125 S.E. 2d 298",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1962,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "306"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "257 N.C. 1",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8565312
      ],
      "year": 1962,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "11"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/257/0001-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "152 S.E. 2d 199",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1966,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "202"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "268 N.C. 720",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8565339
      ],
      "year": 1966,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "722-23"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/268/0720-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "169 S.E. 2d 90",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "5 N.C. App. 520",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8551815
      ],
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/5/0520-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "292 S.E. 2d 277",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1982,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "280"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "57 N.C. App. 643",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8525556
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1982,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "648"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/57/0643-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "157 S.E. 2d 378",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "271 N.C. 702",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8566667
      ],
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/271/0702-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 97-88",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 406,
    "char_count": 7949,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.792,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.2668208392114806e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9155906386820235
    },
    "sha256": "d434078ce89eb848087a0e8462aba915962dcea09c48868e7d367793826d6396",
    "simhash": "1:2e7c62ad0d6fe42a",
    "word_count": 1306
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:20:52.636886+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Chief Judge MORRIS and Judge BECTON concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "CASSIE LEE BUCK, Employee v. PROCTOR & GAMBLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Employer; Self-Insurer Common Defendant"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MARTIN (Robert M.), Judge.\nThe defendant has presented one issue for our review. The question he raises is whether, under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 97-88, the North Carolina Industrial Commission can order defendant, ex mero motu, to pay plaintiffs attorney fees for services rendered on appeal to the Court of Appeals, when the Court of Appeals had previously entered an order denying those same attorney fees.\nAttorney fees are not ordinarily allowed as costs in civil actions or in special proceedings unless expressly authorized by statute. Bowman v. Chair Co., 271 N.C. 702, 157 S.E. 2d 378 (1967). Furthermore, the Industrial Commission has only the limited power and jurisdiction delegated to it by statute, as it is purely a creation of the General Assembly. Id. Applying these basic principles to the statute in question, it appears that the plaintiff and the Commission have chosen an overly broad interpretation of the Commission\u2019s power to award attorney fees.\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 97-88 provides:\nExpenses of appeals brought by insurers. \u2014 If the industrial commission at a hearing on review or any court before which any proceedings are brought on appeal under this Article, shall find that such hearing or proceedings were brought by the insurer and the Commission or court by its decision orders the insurer to make, or to continue payments of benefits, including compensation for medical expenses, to the injured employee, the Commission or court may further order that the cost to the injured employee of such hearing or proceedings including therein reasonable attorney\u2019s fee to be determined by the Commission shall be paid by the insurer as a part of the bill of costs.\nThis court in Taylor v. J. P. Stevens & Co., Inc., 57 N.C. App. 643, 292 S.E. 2d 277 (1982), has placed limitations on the Commission\u2019s power to allow attorney fees under \u00a7 97-88. Judge Clark, speaking for the Court, stated:\nWe hold that the Commission was not authorized to award fees for the services rendered in connection with the appeal before the Supreme Court. It was authorized to make an award of attorney\u2019s fees for services rendered in connection with the hearing before the Commission.\n57 N.C. App. at 648, 292 S.E. 2d at 280.\nThe statutory language of \u00a7 97-88 supports the Taylor interpretation. The General Assembly used the wording \u201cCommission or court\u201d on three separate occasions in \u00a7 97-88. The plaintiff and the Commission have suggested that this language means the Commission and the court are interchangeable; that the Commission can award attorney fees for services rendered before the Court of Appeals, while the Court of Appeals can award such fees for services rendered before the Industrial Commission. We do not agree with that reading of \u00a7 97-88.\nThe better interpretation of this statute is that the Commission, in its discretion, can award attorney fees only when an appeal is before it to review a hearing commissioner\u2019s decision. In such a situation the amount of the award for attorney fees is limited to the value of those services rendered on the appeal taken to the Industrial Commission. The Commission may also exercise limited discretion when the Court of Appeals approves an award of attorney fees but certifies its decision to the Commission with instructions to decide the exact amount to be awarded. See Swaney v. George Newton Construction Co., 5 N.C. App. 520, 169 S.E. 2d 90 (1969). In such a case, the Commission may determine only the amount of the award and not whether the award should be made at all. It follows that the Court of Appeals is the only body which can decide whether to allow attorney fees for services rendered on an appeal taken to the Court of Appeals.\nIn this case the Court of Appeals, by an order dated May 19, .1981, refused to tax attorney fees against the defendant. While the Commission may disagree with this Court\u2019s decision, it has no power to ignore that order. After affirming the Commission\u2019s opinion and award the Court of Appeals certified its decision to the Industrial Commission. That certification process did not constitute a \u201chearing on review\u201d before the Commission and did not give the Commission the power or opportunity to reconsider the appellate court\u2019s decision as to the award of attorney\u2019s fees incurred on appeal to the Court of Appeals. \u201cAppellate courts may render final judgment in proper cases . . . Ordinarily, the opinion is certified down and, . . . binding on the court or [sic] original jurisdiction. ...\u201d 1 N.C. Index 3d, Appeal & Error \u00a7 66. Put another way \u201cNo judgment other than that directed or permitted by the appellate court may be entered. \u2018Otherwise, litigation would never be ended, and the supreme tribunal of the state would be shorn of authority over inferior tribunals.\u2019 \u201d D & W, Inc. v. Charlotte, 268 N.C. 720, 722-23, 152 S.E. 2d 199, 202 (1966), quoting Collins v. Simms, 257 N.C. 1, 11, 125 S.E. 2d 298, 306 (1962).\nFor the foregoing reasons this Court must vacate the orders of the Industrial Commission dated 24 June 1981 and 29 July 1981.\nVacated.\nChief Judge MORRIS and Judge BECTON concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MARTIN (Robert M.), Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Jeffrey L. Miller, for plaintiff-appellee.",
      "Maupin, Taylor & Ellis, by Albert R. Bell, Jr. and M. Keith Kapp, for defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "CASSIE LEE BUCK, Employee v. PROCTOR & GAMBLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Employer; Self-Insurer Common Defendant\nNo. 8110IC1202\n(Filed 21 September 1982)\nMaster and Servant \u00a7 99\u2014 inability oi Industrial Commission to award attorney fees for services rendered on appeal to Court of Appeals\nUnder G.S. 97-88, the Industrial Commission, in its discretion, can award attorney fees only when an appeal is before it to review a hearing commissioner\u2019s decision. The Commission may also exercise limited discretion when the Court of Appeals approves an award of attorney fees but certifies its decision to the Commission with instructions to decide the exact amount to be awarded; however, the Court of Appeals is the only body which can decide whether to allow attorney fees for services rendered on appeal taken to the Court of Appeals. Therefore, where the Court of Appeals refused to tax attorney fees against the defendant, the Industrial Commission erred in subsequently ordering the defendant to pay plaintiffs attorney fees for services rendered on appeal to the Court of Appeals.\nAPPEAL by defendant from North Carolina Industrial Commission. Orders entered 24 June 1981 and 29 July 1981. Heard in the Court of Appeals 1 September 1982.\nOn 27 April 1979, plaintiff was awarded temporary total disability benefits and a 15 percent permanent partial disability for a back injury resulting from an accident occurring in the course of her employment. Deputy Commissioner Rush approved attorney fees of $1,400.00, to be deducted from plaintiffs award. Defendant appealed and the Full Commission adopted the opinion and award of 27 April 1979. At the same hearing the Commission denied a motion by plaintiff that attorney fees be taxed against defendant. On 17 March 1980 the Commission filed an amendment ordering additional attorney fees for plaintiffs counsel in the amount of $300.00, to be deducted from plaintiffs award. Defendant then appealed to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, where the opinion and award of the Commission was affirmed. 52 N.C. App. 88, 278 S.E. 2d 268 (1981). On that same date, 19 May 1981, the Court of Appeals denied plaintiffs motion to tax attorney fees against the defendant.\nOn 8 June 1981, the Court of Appeals certified to the Industrial Commission that its opinion and award were affirmed. On 24 June 1981, Commissioner Vance signed an order directing defendant to comply with the original opinion and award. That order also provided that the defendant was to pay plaintiffs attorney fees for services before the Court of Appeals, in the amount of $1,500.00. On 29 July 1981, Commissioner Vance signed an order denying defendant\u2019s motion to set aside the order of 24 June 1981.\nJeffrey L. Miller, for plaintiff-appellee.\nMaupin, Taylor & Ellis, by Albert R. Bell, Jr. and M. Keith Kapp, for defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0804-01",
  "first_page_order": 836,
  "last_page_order": 839
}
