Case Name: MISS ALMA LEE v. ROSE'S 5-10-25c STORES et al.
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1933-10-11
Citations: 205 N.C. 310
Docket Number: 
Parties: MISS ALMA LEE v. ROSE’S 5-10-25c STORES et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 205
Pages: 310–311

Head Matter:
MISS ALMA LEE v. ROSE’S 5-10-25c STORES et al.
(Filed 11 October, 1933.)
Master and Servant P h—
Where the findings of the Industrial Commission, supported by evidence, are to the effect that a review of the award of compensation is sought by an employee more than twelve months from the date of the last payment, the order of the Commission denying further compensation will be upheld by the courts. N. C. Code, 8081 (bbb).
Civil actioh, before Frizzelle, J., at June Term, 1933, of Johbstok.
Tbe plaintiff was employed by tbe defendant as a clerk in August, 1928, and thereafter on or about 14 May, 1930, while sbe was engaged in cleaning out a candy case, it became necessary for ber to lift heavy boxes of candy, and in doing so sbe sustained certain physical injuries. She stayed out from work ten or twelve days and returned to ber duties. Sbe was paid her full salary, and in addition a compensation check for four days’ disability, was sent to her and duly endorsed. Thereafter sbe returned to tbe store and worked until 12 September, 1931, when sbe was discharged because sbe was unable to properly perform ber duties. On 2 May, 1932, sbe filed notice with tbe Industrial Commission, asserting that there was a recurrence of disability, and that sbe was suffering severe and permanent injury.
Tbe cause was beard by a commissioner, and upon denial of an award it was appealed to tbe full Commission. Tbe full Commission affirmed tbe judgment of the bearing commissioner, and upon appeal to tbe Superior Court, there was judgment approving tbe “findings of fact, conclusions of law and award of tbe Industrial Commission.”
From such judgment tbe plaintiff appealed.
Winfield H. Lyon for plaintiff.
Thomas A. Banks for defendant.

Opinion:
Pee Oueiam.
The hearing commissioner found that "the plaintiff in tbis ease signed an agreement for compensation in 1930. Compensation was paid and tbe last payment was made on 19 July, 1930. Tbe plain tiff claims to have notified tbe employer on 7 August, 1931, of tbe recurrence of tbe disability caused by tbe injury on 14 May, 1930. Tbe first notice of a recurrence of disability was filed witb tbe Industrial Commission on 2 May, 1932, or nearly two years after tbe final receipt was signed by tbe plaintiff."
Section 46 of tbe Workmen's Compensation Act, C. S., 8081 (bbb), provides tbat "no.review shall be made after twelve months from the date of tbe last payment of compensation pursuant to an award under this chapter."
There was competent evidence to support tbe findings of tbe Industrial Commission tbat tbe last payment of compensation was made on 19 July, 1930. Tbe statute is plain and unambiguous, and no reason occurs why it should not be enforced according to the plain provisions.
Affirmed.