 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Dishmond v. International Paper Co.3/16/1999
was obligated to elect to proceed under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-29 (1991) or N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-31 (1991), and that he was not eligible to receive compensation under both.
Plaintiff next contends that there is no competent evidence on which the Commission could base its finding that plaintiff's disability resulted from injuries to his brain, vision, and hearing. Plaintiff argues that all four experts used in this case testified that plaintiff's total disability resulted from injury to his brain, not his vision and hearing, and that the Commission erred by finding contrary to the expert testimony. In Harvey v. Raleigh Police Dept., 96 N.C. App. 28, 34, 384 S.E.2d 549, 552 (discussing Click v. Freight Carriers, 300 N.C. 164, 265 S.E.2d 389 (1980)), disc. review denied, 325 N.C. 706, 388 S.E.2d 454 (1989), this Court stated, " e do not read Click to require that the Industrial Commission must find in accordance with plaintiff's expert medical testimony if the defendant does not offer expert medical testimony to the contrary." We interpret Harvey as establishing the rule that the Commission's findings, when supported by competent evidence, will not be overturned on appeal, even where there is expert testimony to the contrary. Accordingly, our review is limited to whether there is competent evidence on which the Commission could base its finding.
The record indicates that there was competent evidence on which the Commission could base its finding that total disability was caused by damage to plaintiff's brain, vision, and hearing. According to Dr. Timothy Saunders, plaintiff's vision impairment was the consequence of his brain injury . Similarly, according to Dr. Christ Koconis, plaintiff's hearing loss also resulted from the injury sustained when the warning light hit his head. The losses to plaintiff's vision and hearing are manifestations of the damage to the brain itself and, along with the disfigurement resulting from the initial blow, are all aspects of a single injury. We find that this and other evidence indicating plaintiff could no longer function in a work environment, is competent evidence to support the Commission's finding. Plaintiff's assignment of error is therefore overruled, and the Industrial Commission's decision is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Judges WYNN and HORTON concur.
Page 1 2 3 North Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|