{
  "id": 8573546,
  "name": "CLARENCE CRAWFORD, Employee v. CENTRAL BONDED WAREHOUSE, DIVISION OF BAYSIDE WAREHOUSE COMPANY, Employer and PHOENIX ASSURANCE OF NEW YORK, Carrier",
  "name_abbreviation": "Crawford v. Central Bonded Warehouse",
  "decision_date": "1965-03-03",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "826",
  "last_page": "827",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "263 N.C. 826"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "131 S.E. 2d 308",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "259 N.C. 724",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8562493
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/259/0724-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "132 S.E. 2d 865",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "260 N.C. 435",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8575143
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/260/0435-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 206,
    "char_count": 2694,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.591,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.6799314963278692e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6973327402485627
    },
    "sha256": "09c250848f69e7bc04e8c14a250731be43a5414542ca845c4bff4189ea5dbaf6",
    "simhash": "1:00e5fa9aea8a8d36",
    "word_count": 441
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:44:48.035422+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "CLARENCE CRAWFORD, Employee v. CENTRAL BONDED WAREHOUSE, DIVISION OF BAYSIDE WAREHOUSE COMPANY, Employer and PHOENIX ASSURANCE OF NEW YORK, Carrier."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PeR Cuexam.\nThe facts found by the Commission are supported by competent evidence. G.S. 97-86. These findings of fact are conclusive on appeal even though there may be evidence contra. Taylor v. Twin City Club, 260 N.C. 435, 132 S.E. 2d 865. The findings of fact support the conclusions and the Opinion and Award of the Full Commission. Where an idiopathic condition of a workman is the sole cause of the injury, compensation may not be awarded. Cole v. Guilford County, 259 N.C. 724, 131 S.E. 2d 308.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PeR Cuexam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "O. A. Warren and Whitener & Mitchem for plaintiff.",
      "Grier, Parker, Poe cfe Thompson and Gaston H. Gage for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "CLARENCE CRAWFORD, Employee v. CENTRAL BONDED WAREHOUSE, DIVISION OF BAYSIDE WAREHOUSE COMPANY, Employer and PHOENIX ASSURANCE OF NEW YORK, Carrier.\n(Filed 3 March, 1965.)\n\u25a01. Master and Servant \u00a7 93\u2014\nFindings of fact of the Industrial Commission, when supported by competent evidence, are conclusive on appeal even though there may be evidence contra.\n3. Master and Servant \u00a7 54\u2014\nCompensation may not be awarded for an injury resulting solely from an idiopathic condition of the employee.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Froneberger, J., October 12, 1964, Non-jury Session of Gaston.\nPursuant to the provisions of the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act, plaintiff filed with the Industrial Commission a claim for compensation because of injuries suffered by him while performing his duties as employee of defendant, Central Bonded Warehouse.\nDeputy Commissioner Smith heard evidence and found these facts. On 28 February 1963 plaintiff was trucking cotton with a hand truck from a freight car to a warehouse; he had worked about 7 hours that day. About 4:30 P.M. he \u201cwas taken with a seizure while trucking a cotton bale, fell on the concrete floor and as a result thereof fractured and dislocated his left shoulder.\u201d He had been doing this kind of work for 28 years. He had a history of grand mal seizures.\nThe Deputy Commissioner concluded that plaintiff sustained an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, and awarded compensation.\nThe Full Commission, upon review, found these additional facts. The accident was a result of the blackout or seizure suffered by plaintiff and was not a result of plaintiff\u2019s employment. His employment did not place him in a place of danger and the employment did not contribute to the injuries sustained by plaintiff.\nThe Full Commission concluded that plaintiff\u2019s injury by accident did not arise out of his employment, but arose as a result of an idiopathic condition suffered by him. Plaintiff\u2019s claim for compensation was denied. On appeal, the Superior Court affirmed the decision of the Full Commission.\nO. A. Warren and Whitener & Mitchem for plaintiff.\nGrier, Parker, Poe cfe Thompson and Gaston H. Gage for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0826-01",
  "first_page_order": 864,
  "last_page_order": 865
}