Court Opinion

ID: 9539348
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:02:41.752864+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:58:44.478434
License: Public Domain

HUDSON, Judge,
concurring in result.
While I agree with the result reached by the majority, I do not agree with the analysis of the difference between the role of the full commission in a case proceeding under the Tort Claims Act as compared to one under the Workers’ Compensation Act. For the reasons discussed in my concurring opinion in Fennell v. N.C. Dep’t of Crime Control & Pub. Safety, 145 N.C. App. 584, 593, 551 S.E.2d 486, 492 (2001), cert. denied, 355 N.C. 285, 560 S.E 2d 800 (2002), I believe that the General Assembly envisioned different roles for the full commission in the two types of claims, and that in a tort claim the full commission must defer to credibility determinations based on the hearing deputy’s opportunity to observe the demeanor of witnesses. However, the full commission in this case acted appropriately when it made its own findings of fact and conclusions of law based on its review of the record before it, including the medical records and transcripts of the hearing and deposition testimony of Dr. Tuttle, who did not appear before the deputy commissioner. Thus, where the deputy commissioner did not actually view the demeanor of Dr. Tuttle or the other physicians whose records were in evidence, the full commission was *119as well situated to assess this evidence as was the deputy commissioner. Thus, the findings of the full commission based on the medical evidence were within the scope of its role as defined by N. C. Gen. Stat. § 143-292 (2001).