Case ID: nc_244/html/0076-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

DEWEY C. COATS (Employee) v. B. & R. WILSON, INC. (Employer) and EMPLOYERS MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY.
    (Filed 2 May, 1956.)
    Master and Servant § 43—
    Finding that claimant employee did not file claim for compensation within twelve months from the date of the accident causing the injury, as required by G.S. 97-24(a), supports the conclusion that the claim is barred.
    Johnson, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
    Appeal by plaintiff, employee, from Williams, J., in Chambers in Harnett County, 10 November, 1955, of Johnston.
    Proceeding before North Carolina Industrial Commission for compensation under the provisions of the North Carolina Workmen’s Compensation Act.
    The Industrial Commission upon all the competent evidence in the case found as a fact that on 14 March, 1952, plaintiff employee received an injury by accident which arose out of and in the course of his employment with defendant employer, but the Commission’s file does not show that any notice of the injury was received until 20 April, 1954, approximately two years after the injury. Thereupon the Commission concluded as a matter of law that plaintiff, employee, did not file a claim with the North Carolina Industrial Commission within twelve months from the date of the accident, as required by G.S. 97-24(a), and that, therefore, his claim is barred. And from award in accordance therewith, plaintiff employee excepted thereto and appealed to Superior Court, where, after hearing, the court entered judgment affirming the award of the Industrial Commission.
    Plaintiff employee excepted thereto, and appeals to Supreme Court and assigns error.
    
      E. B. Temple, Jr., for Plaintiff, Appellant.
    
    
      Teague & Johnson for Defendants, Appellees.
    
   Per Curiam.

The facts found by the North Carolina Industrial Commission are sufficient to support the conclusions of law reached by it. Hence the judgment from which this appeal is taken is

Affirmed.

Johnson, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.