Buchanan v. State Highway & Public Works Commission
Charlie Buchanan v. State Highway & Public Works Commission
Opinion of the Court
Devin, J.
Under the North Carolina Workmen’s Compensation Act, dealing with the matter of compensation for injuries due to the hazards of industry, both the duty and the exclusive authority to find the facts relative to controverted claims are vested in the Industrial Commission, and it is provided by section 60 of the act that upon review the award of the Commission shall be conclusive and binding as to all questions of fact. In accord with this statutory provision it has been uniformly *175 beld by this Court that, when supported by competent evidence, the findings of fact by the Industrial Commission are conclusive on appeal, and are not subject to review by the Superior Court or the Supreme Court.
Williams v. Thompson, 200 N. C., 463 , 157 S. E., 430 ;
Lockey v. Cohen, Goldman & Co., 213 N. C., 356 , 196 S. E., 342 ;
Lassiter v. Tel. Co., 215 N. C., 227 , 1 S. E. (2d), 542 ;
McNeill v. Construction Co., 216 N. C., 744 . The only exception to this rule is where the jurisdiction of the Industrial Commission is challenged.
Aycock v. Cooper, 202 N. C., 500 , 163 S. E., 569 ;
Francis v. Wood Turning Co., 204 N. C., 701 , 169 S. E., 654 . The powers of the Superior Court with reference to appeals from the Industrial Commission are pointed out in Tindall v. Furniture Co., 216 N. C., 306 ;
Bank v. Motor Co., 216 N. C., 432 ;
Butts v. Montague Bros., 208 N. C., 186 , 179 S. E., 799 ;
Byrd v. Lumber Co., 207 N. C., 253 , 176 S. E., 572 .
An examination of the record in the instant case discloses that there was competent evidence to support the findings of the Industrial Commission as to the manner in which the injury complained. of was sustained, and we conclude that this was not an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of plaintiff's employment, so as to bring the case within the purview of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
Neely v. Statesville, 212 N. C., 365 , 193 S. E., 664 ;
Slade v. Hosiery Mills, 209 N. C., 823 , 184 S. E., 844 . The facts found by the Industrial Commission in this ease differ in material respects from those in Moore v. Sales Co., 214 N. C., 424 , 199 S. E., 605 , and upon which an award in that case was sustained.
The court below was in error in reversing the findings and award of the Industrial Commission, and the cause is remanded to the Superior Court of Graham County for judgment in accord with this opinion.
Reversed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 20 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.