Case Name: WILLIAM CHARLES PALMER, Petitioner-Appellee v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CRIME CONTROL & PUBLIC SAFETY, Respondent-Appellant
Court: North Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1991-02-05
Citations: 101 N.C. App. 572
Docket Number: No. 9010SC50
Parties: WILLIAM CHARLES PALMER, Petitioner-Appellee v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CRIME CONTROL & PUBLIC SAFETY, Respondent-Appellant
Judges: Judges Johnson and Parker concur.
Reporter: North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports
Volume: 101
Pages: 572–573

Head Matter:
WILLIAM CHARLES PALMER, Petitioner-Appellee v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CRIME CONTROL & PUBLIC SAFETY, Respondent-Appellant
No. 9010SC50
(Filed 5 February 1991)
State § 12 (NCI3d)— State Personnel Commission — award of costs and attorneys fees — increased by trial court
The trial court did not err by modifying an award of costs and attorneys fees by the State Personnel Commission without findings of fact. The Commission’s award of costs and attorneys fees was reviewable under N.C.G.S. § 126-41, and it is enough that the record, which contains an itemization of counsel’s various services, supports the determination that the Commission’s award was inadequate.
Am Jur 2d, Costs §§ 52, 78, 79, 94.
Appeal by respondent from order entered 21 September 1989 by Judge James H. Pou Bailey in WAKE County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 28 August 1990.
Smith, Anderson, Blount, Dorsett, Mitchell & Jemigan, hy C. Ernest Simons, Jr., for petitioner appellee.
Attorney General Lacy H. Thornburg, by Special Deputy Attorney General Isaac T. Avery, III, for respondent appellant.

Opinion:
PHILLIPS, Judge.
Following proceedings through the proper administrative channels the State Personnel Commission affirmed the dismissal of petitioner from his employment with the North Carolina State Highway Patrol, but awarded him back pay for a certain period and costs, including attorneys fees, in the total amount of $8,037.03. Petitioner appealed the costs and attorneys fees award to the Superior Court of Wake County, which increased the allowance to $17,000. Respondent's appeal questions only the increase.
Respondent contends that the court's modification of the award is erroneous because no findings of fact were made and the costs and fees allowed are excessive. Neither contention has merit. Under the express provisions of G.S. 126-41 the Commission's award of costs and attorneys fees was reviewable, the court had the authority to reverse or modify the award if found to be inadequate, and appellate tribunals with the authority to modify administrative decisions are not required to make findings of fact. Shepherd v. Consolidated Judicial Retirement System, 89 N.C. App. 560, 366 S.E.2d 604 (1988). In this instance the court determined that the Commission's award was inadequate and it is enough that the record, which contains an itemization of counsel's various services, supports that determination.
Affirmed.
Judges Johnson and Parker concur.