{
  "id": 8522435,
  "name": "BOBBY WAGONER, Employee, Plaintiff v. DOUGLAS BATTERY MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Employer, and HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY, Carrier, Defendants",
  "name_abbreviation": "Wagoner v. Douglas Battery Manufacturing Co.",
  "decision_date": "1986-04-01",
  "docket_number": "No. 8510IC1023",
  "first_page": "163",
  "last_page": "165",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "80 N.C. App. 163"
    }
  ],
  "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": "314 S.E. 2d 833",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "68 N.C. App. 151",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8526784
      ],
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/68/0151-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "278 S.E. 2d 268",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "52 N.C. App. 88",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        12170012
      ],
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/52/0088-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "338 S.E. 2d 320",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 1986,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "321"
        },
        {
          "page": "321-22"
        },
        {
          "page": "321"
        },
        {
          "page": "322"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "78 N.C. App. 793",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8524334
      ],
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 1986,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "795"
        },
        {
          "page": "795"
        },
        {
          "page": "795"
        },
        {
          "page": "795"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/78/0793-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "175 S.E. 2d 324",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "9 N.C. App. 57",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8547956
      ],
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/9/0057-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "269 S.E. 2d 667",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "48 N.C. App. 489",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8551366
      ],
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/48/0489-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 285,
    "char_count": 4273,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.738,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.8531505184064197e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7238140138672178
    },
    "sha256": "1a4d81e1c6902150bcd674e1d022734f8451f386951992fb2362dcc99a8ee66b",
    "simhash": "1:05c26498e4bf1346",
    "word_count": 686
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:01:08.586003+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Wells and Cozort concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "BOBBY WAGONER, Employee, Plaintiff v. DOUGLAS BATTERY MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Employer, and HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY, Carrier, Defendants"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "WHICHARD, Judge.\nDefendants contend the Commission erred by applying an improper standard to the evidence, and that its determination thus was based on a misapprehension of the law. We agree.\nThis Court recently stated:\nThe plenary powers of the Commission are such that upon review, it may adopt, modify or reject the findings of fact of the Hearing Commissioner, and in doing so may weigh the evidence and make its own determination as to the weight and credibility of the evidence. Hollar v. Furniture Co., 48 N.C. App. 489, 269 S.E. 2d 667 (1980). The Industrial Commission has the duty and authority to resolve conflicts in the testimony whether medical or not, and the conflict should not always be resolved in favor of the claimant. Rooks v. Cement Co., 9 N.C. App. 57, 175 S.E. 2d 324 (1970).\nCauble v. Macke Co., 78 N.C. App. 793, 795, 338 S.E. 2d 320, 321 (1986).\nHere, as in Cauble, the Commission did not weigh the evidence. The above-quoted language from the Opinion and Award indicates that the Commission \u201capparently acted under the mistaken impression that the law required a finding for the plaintiff if there was any competent evidence [, viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff,] to support such a finding.\u201d Cauble, 78 N.C. App. at 795, 338 S.E. 2d at 321-22. The authority cited by the Commission, Buck v. Procter & Gamble Co., 52 N.C. App. 88, 278 S.E. 2d 268 (1981), applies to review of evidence by appellate courts upon appeal from the Industrial Commission. Appellate courts must follow the \u201cany competent evidence\u201d standard in deciding whether the evidence permits a determination by the Industrial Commission, which is the fact-finder. Buck, supra. The fact-finder, however, is not required so to view the evidence. Rather, its duty is to weigh the evidence, resolve conflicts therein, and make its own determination as to weight and credibility. Cauble, 78 N.C. App. at 795, 338 S.E. 2d at 321.\n\u201cWhen, as here, facts are found by the Commission under a misapprehension of the law, we are empowered to remand the case so that the evidence may be considered in its true legal light.\u201d Cauble, 78 N.C. App. at 795, 338 S.E. 2d at 322, citing Mills v. Fieldcrest Mills, 68 N.C. App. 151, 314 S.E. 2d 833 (1984). Accordingly, the Opinion and Award is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the Industrial Commission to make findings of fact and conclusions of law consistent with this opinion.\nReversed and remanded.\nJudges Wells and Cozort concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WHICHARD, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "David B. Hough and Lawrence J. Fine for plaintiff appellee.",
      "Petree, Stockton, Robinson, Vaughn, Glaze & Maready, by Robert J. Lawing and Jane C. Jackson, for defendant appellants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "BOBBY WAGONER, Employee, Plaintiff v. DOUGLAS BATTERY MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Employer, and HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY, Carrier, Defendants\nNo. 8510IC1023\n(Filed 1 April 1986)\nMaster and Servant \u00a7 94.3\u2014 review by Industrial Commission \u2014 application of improper standard to the evidence\nThe full Industrial Commission erred in failing to weigh the evidence and in awarding plaintiff workers\u2019 compensation benefits under the mistaken impression that the law required a finding for plaintiff if there was any competent evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, to support such a finding.\nAPPEAL by defendants from Opinion and Award of the North Carolina Industrial Commission filed 30 April 1985. Heard in the Court of Appeals 6 February 1986.\nPlaintiff seeks workers\u2019 compensation benefits for a psychiatric condition which he attributes to a previous compensable injury to his hand. The Hearing Commissioner denied compensation based on a conclusion that plaintiffs mental illness and resulting hospitalization were proximately caused by his having been under the influence of controlled substances. The full Commission, however, concluded that plaintiffs mental illness and hospitalization were proximately caused by his injury by accident which gave rise to this claim, and that he was entitled to compensation for such disability. Its Opinion and Award states: \u201cViewing the totality of the expert testimony in the light most favorable to plaintiff, there was \u2018some evidence that the accident at least might have or could have produced the particular disability in question.\u2019 \u201d\nDefendants appeal.\nDavid B. Hough and Lawrence J. Fine for plaintiff appellee.\nPetree, Stockton, Robinson, Vaughn, Glaze & Maready, by Robert J. Lawing and Jane C. Jackson, for defendant appellants."
  },
  "file_name": "0163-01",
  "first_page_order": 191,
  "last_page_order": 193
}
