 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Fowler v. Food Lion6/7/2005
ed by competent evidence. Instead defendants simply list evidence which is contrary to the Commission's findings of fact. However, " e are bound by the Commission's findings if they are supported by competent evidence, even if there is contrary evidence." Gilberto v. Wake Forest Univ., 152 N.C. App. 112, 116, 566 S.E.2d 788, 792 (2002). Consequently, the existence of conflicting evidence is not sufficient to support a reversal of the Commission's findings of fact when there exists other competent evidence in the record supporting the Commission's findings.
Defendants' argument is based on the contention that the evidence upon which the Commission based its findings of fact is not credible and therefore not competent. Our Supreme Court has held, however, that the Commission is the "sole judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence." Deese, 352 N.C. at 116, 530 S.E.2d at 553. We, therefore, only examine whether there was competent evidence to support the Commission's findings of fact, and do not re-examine or weigh the evidence. See Fish v. Steelcase, Inc., 116 N.C. App. 703, 708, 449 S.E.2d 233, 237 (1994). Defendants further assigns error to the Commission's failure to make findings of fact regarding the credibility of several witnesses in the matter. The Commission is not required to make findings of fact regarding witness credibility. Our Supreme Court was clear on this point in Deese when it stated that it is clear that the Commission does not have to explain its findings of fact by attempting to distinguish which evidence or witnesses it finds credible. Requiring the Commission to explain its credibility determinations and allowing the Court of Appeals to review the Commission's explanation of those credibility determinations would be inconsistent with our legal system's tradition of not requiring the fact finder to explain why he or she believes one witness over another or believes one piece of evidence is more credible than another.
352 N.C. at 116-117, 530 S.E.2d at 553. Accordingly, as defendants' arguments that the Commission's findings of fact are not supported by competent evidence would require this Court to substitute our determinations of credibility for those of the Commission impermissibly, those assignments of error are overruled.
We now turn to whether the Commission's findings of fact support its conclusions of law. There are two theories upon which a compensable back injury can be based: (1) injury by accident; or (2) injury resulting from a specific traumatic incident. Livingston v. James C. Fields & Co., 93 N.C. App. 336, 337, 377 S.E.2d 788, 788 (1989). " here injury to the back arises out of and in the course of employment and is the direct result of a specific traumatic incident of the work assigned, 'injury by accident' shall be construed to include any disabling physicalinjury to the back arising out of and causally related to such incident." N.C. Gen. Stat. . 97-2(6)(2003).
The Commission found that plaintiff had "sustained traumatic injuries to her back on both July 18, 2001 and on January 10, 2001 . . . ." The Commission also made the following findings of fact:
2. In 1999 plaintiff received a job as a baker for defendant. On 18 July 2001 plaintiff was unloading a truck containing packages of chickens. Each package weighed approximately fifty (50) to seventy (70) pounds. As Plaintiff pulled up a package, she felt a pull in her back. Plaintiff reported this to Carlyle Suggs, Assistant Manager, and she was subsequently sent for a drug test, which tested negative.
4. On 10 January 2002 plaintiff was unloading a truck when she tripped over two (2) boxes and fell on her knee. Two workers, Brenda Norton and
Page 1 2 3 4 North Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|