Cauble v. Macke Co.
Cases that cite this one
29 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Wagoner v. Douglas Battery Manufacturing Co. (N.C. Ct. App. 1986)
- Ballenger v. ITT Grinnell Industrial Piping, Inc. (N.C. Ct. App. 1986)
- Jones v. Wilson Stores (North Carolina Industrial Commission 2002)
- Hill v. the Summit (North Carolina Industrial Commission 2002)
- Hill v. Ruan Transp. Mgmt. Sys., Inc. (N.C. Ct. App. 2026)
- Jenkins v. Public Service Co. of NC (N.C. Ct. App. 1999)
- Phillips v. U.S. Air, Inc. (N.C. Ct. App. 1995)
- Carroll v. Burlington Industries (N.C. Ct. App. 1986)
- Crowder v. Preston Trucking Co. (North Carolina Industrial Commission 2002)
- Bennett v. Progressive Furniture Company (North Carolina Industrial Commission 2002)
- Ballenger v. ITT Grinnell Industrial Piping, Inc. (N.C. Ct. App. 1986)
- Tinajero v. Balfour Beatty Infrastructure (North Carolina Industrial Commission 2010)
- Hughes v. FRITO LAY, INC. (N.C. Ct. App. 2008)
- Chavers v. Lee Electrical (North Carolina Industrial Commission 2007)
- Sprinkle v. Eblen Short Stop Stores, Inc. (North Carolina Industrial Commission 1998)
- Milazzo v. Firestone Fibers Textiles (North Carolina Industrial Commission 1997)
- Duncan v. Tyson Foods, Incorporated (North Carolina Industrial Commission 1997)
- Anderson v. Holly Farms Foods (North Carolina Industrial Commission 1996)
- Espinoza v. Showell Farms, Inc. (North Carolina Industrial Commission 1996)
- Szilvay v. Carolina Meadows (North Carolina Industrial Commission 1996)
- Wood v. Burlington Industries, Inc. (North Carolina Industrial Commission 1996)
- Lewis v. the Kroger Company (North Carolina Industrial Commission 1996)
- Ellis v. Allied Concrete Forming and Associates (North Carolina Industrial Commission 1995)
- Semones v. Graybar Electric Company (North Carolina Industrial Commission 1995)
- Kicinska v. Constar Plastic Corporation (North Carolina Industrial Commission 1995)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
Defendants contend that the Commission erred in its decision to award plaintiff further compensation because the findings and conclusions of the Commission were based on a misapprehension of the law. We agree.
The plenary powers of the Commission are such that upon review, it may adopt, modify or reject the findings of fact of the Hearing Commissioner, and in doing so may weigh the evidence and make its own determination as to the weight and credibility of the evidence. Hollar v. Furniture Co., 48 N.C. App. 489, 269 S.E. 2d 667 (1980). The Industrial Commission has the duty and authority to resolve conflicts in the testimony whether medical or not, and the conflict should not always be resolved in favor of the claimant. Rooks v. Cement Co., 9 N.C. App. 57, 175 S.E. 2d 324 (1970).
The Commission in the case at bar did not weigh the evidence. Based on the language in the Opinion and Award, the Commission apparently acted under the mistaken impression that the law required a finding for the plaintiff if there was any competent evidence to support such a finding. The authorities cited by the Commission to support this review of the evidence, especially Mayo v. City of Washington, 51 N.C. App. 402, 276 S.E. 2d 747 (1981), apply only to the review of evidence by the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of this State.
When, as here, facts are found by the Commission under a misapprehension of the law, we are empowered to remand the case so that the evidence may be considered in its true legal light. Mills v. Fieldcrest Mills, 68 N.C. App. 151, 314 S.E. 2d 833 (1984). Therefore, the case is remanded to the Industrial Commission to make findings of fact and conclusions of law consistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.