Court Opinion

ID: 9565896
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:29:46.511768+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:52.356173
License: Public Domain

Judge Lewis
dissenting.
In paragraph four of his conclusions of law, the Deputy Commissioner found that the plaintiff “is not entitled to have the medical expenses as to Dr. Boone paid. . . .” The Full Commission further stated that “charges for a major surgical operation and incidental care will not be approved unless. . . .” It went on to find that *129the “surgery” was not authorized. It is my opinion that taken in context, considering the whole opinion, the Full Commission made adequate findings and conclusions that plaintiff failed to produce any evidence that the plaintiff’s surgery and all incidental treatment necessarily connected thereto was authorized. If there is any competent evidence in the record to support the findings of the Commissioner, that determination is conclusive on appeal. Dolbow v. Holland Industries, Inc., 64 N.C. App. 695, 697, 308 S.E.2d 335, 336 (1983), cert. denied, 310 N.C. 308, 312 S.E.2d 651 (1984). Since the surgery and all incidental care by Dr. Boone clearly was not authorized, there is no need to run the Commission through the hoops again. In this respect, I dissent from the majority.