{
  "id": 8551034,
  "name": "WOODROW W. JULIAN, Employee v. HUGHEY TILE COMPANY, Employer, THE HOME INDEMNITY COMPANY, Carrier",
  "name_abbreviation": "Julian v. Hughey Tile Co.",
  "decision_date": "1970-09-16",
  "docket_number": "No. 7019IC386",
  "first_page": "424",
  "last_page": "427",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "9 N.C. App. 424"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 335,
    "char_count": 7029,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.502,
    "sha256": "d9fde312230454066f2978ed0169a67721df880684b8d6444b9b72fec982e328",
    "simhash": "1:50427de15b827c0f",
    "word_count": 1142
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:50:15.842675+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Brock and Graham, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "WOODROW W. JULIAN, Employee v. HUGHEY TILE COMPANY, Employer, THE HOME INDEMNITY COMPANY, Carrier"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Morris, J.\nWe are not able to make any determination of this appeal from the record now before us. The record contains an award based on a compromise agreement for the payment of $6750 in addition to counsel fees and medical expense up to the date of the agreement. It also contains an agreement executed only by plaintiff calling for the payment of $8072.10 \u201cplus the medical bills attached hereto.\u201d Appellant\u2019s assignments of error are as follows:\n1. \u201cThe appellant assigns as error the failure of the Full Commission and Hearing Commissioner to find plaintiff did not sign and execute the settlement agreement filed by Commissioner Marshall on October 6, 1969. Exception No. 1\u201d\nException No. 1 is to the order of the Hearing Commissioner.\n2. \u201cThe appellant assigns as error that the Full Commission erred in the finding no real controversy exists. Exception No. 2\u201d\nException No. 2 is also to the order of the Hearing Commissioner entered 3 October 1969.\n3. \u201cThe appellant assigns as error that the Hearing Commissioner erred in the entry of the Opinion and Award filed October 6,1969. Exception No. 3\u201d\nException No. 3 is to the order of the Full Commission filed 19 February 1970.\nException No. 5 is to the portion of the Full Commission\u2019s order quoted above, but this exception does not appear in the grouping of exceptions and assignments of error.\nIn his brief appellant argues that since plaintiff did not sign the agreement upon which the award was based, the entry of the award by the commissioner on 6 October 1969 and the entry of the order approving it by the Full Commission on 19 February 1970, constituted error. He also argues in his brief that upon the evidence plaintiff is entitled as a matter of law to 400 weeks\u2019 compensation.\nDefendant attached to its brief as an appendix a copy of an agreement which it contends is the one upon which the award was based.\nIn an effort to arrive at some understanding of the case, this Court ordered the Industrial Commission to certify to the Court as an addendum to the record \u201cthe order of the Industrial Commission filed 6 October 1969 approving the compromise settlement agreement, and a certified copy of the compromise settlement agreement which was so approved.\u201d In response thereto, the Industrial Commission certified to the Court a copy of the agreement upon which the award was based calling for the payment of $6750 \u201cin one lump sum without commutation, plus the medical bills attached hereto.\u201d This agreement is signed by all parties and the plaintiff\u2019s signature acknowledged before a notary public whose certificate appears thereon.\nWe have before us no facts. Counsel for plaintiff stated in oral argument that a page providing for lesser payment was inserted in the agreement in lieu of the page providing for the larger amount. This may have caused the problem, but we are left to speculate on the answers to several questions. If a page was inserted, was it done by agreement of counsel? Who presented the agreement to the Hearing Commissioner? Does the record before the Industrial Commission contain two executed agreements or only one? If only one, which one?\nWhile appellant\u2019s assignments of error are not properly before us, we are of the opinion that the irregularities charged on this appeal are of such nature that a determination should be made. We do not perceive that this can be done without findings of fact by the Industrial Commission. The application for review by the Full Commission was based upon the ground that the \u201cagreement apparently not what Woodrow W. Julian agreed to.\u201d The matter must be remanded to the Industrial Commission for findings of fact.\nRemanded.\nBrock and Graham, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Morris, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John Randolph Ingram for plaintiff appellant.",
      "Hedrick, McKnight, Parham, Helms and Warley, by Philip R. Hedrick, for defendant appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "WOODROW W. JULIAN, Employee v. HUGHEY TILE COMPANY, Employer, THE HOME INDEMNITY COMPANY, Carrier\nNo. 7019IC386\n(Filed 16 September 1970)\nMaster and Servant \u00a7 96\u2014 review of compensation proceeding \u2014 remand for findings of fact\nThe Court of Appeals remands a workmen\u2019s compensation case to the Industrial Commission for findings of fact on the appellant\u2019s contention that the Compromise Settlement Agreement did not coincide with his understanding with respect to reimbursements for certain medical expenses.\nAppeal by plaintiff from the North Carolina Industrial Commission opinion and award of 19 February 1970.\nOn 6 October 1969, Commissioner Marshall entered an \u201cOrder Approving Compromise Settlement Agreement.\u201d The order approved and allowed a fee of $1000 for plaintiff\u2019s counsel. Immediately following the order, the record on appeal contains an affidavit of plaintiff as follows: \u201cThat the attached agreement is the only agreement I have signed and consented to in this case and I have not authorized any person to consent to any other agreement for me.\u201d The record indicates that the \u201caffidavit\u201d was \u201csworn to on October 28, 1969,\u201d although the acknowledgment of the officer does not appear. The record next contains a copy of an \u201cAgreement for Final Compromise Settlement and Release.\u201d This agreement does not contain the same amount of settlement as is shown in the commissioner\u2019s order. The record indicates this agreement was signed only by the plaintiff whose signature was acknowledged before a notary public whose name and expiration of commission are reproduced as a part of the record. The next document appearing in the record is \u201cApplication for Review\u201d as follows:\n\u201cThe Undersigned Hereby Gives Notice op Appeal and Application for Review in the above case to the North Carolina Industrial Commission, sitting as the Full Commission. Error on the part of the Hearing Commission is alleged for that:\n1. Agreement apparently not what Woodrow W. Julian agreed to. Need copy of transcript and agreement as filed.\nAll grounds for appeal not specifically set forth herein are hereby specifically waived and abandoned except as otherwise provided by law and the rules of the Industrial Commission.\nW. W.' Julian\nBy: John Randolph Ingram\nDate of this Application:\nOctober 17, 1969.\u201d\nImmediately following this is the order of the Full Commission filed 19 February 1970. The order states that counsel for the parties appeared and ably presented their contentions, counsel for plaintiff contending that the agreement as approved did not coincide with plaintiff\u2019s understanding with respect to his receiving reimbursement for certain medical expenses allegedly paid by him. The Commission found no facts but stated: \u201cThe Full Commission has considered the contentions of the parties and has reviewed the record in the case, and is of the opinion that no real controversy exists and that any medical expenses actually paid by the plaintiff can be determined in an administrative manner upon plaintiff\u2019s production of proper receipts covering medical expenses he paid.\u201d The Full Commission therefore approved the commissioner\u2019s order except for attorney\u2019s fees which was increased to $1500.\nJohn Randolph Ingram for plaintiff appellant.\nHedrick, McKnight, Parham, Helms and Warley, by Philip R. Hedrick, for defendant appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0424-01",
  "first_page_order": 448,
  "last_page_order": 451
}