Court Opinion

ID: 9853551
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:50:15.677168+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:51.094172
License: Public Domain

Judge WELLS
dissenting.
The Commission found and concluded that the purchase of the van was reasonable as a rehabilitative measure. The evidence supports this finding and conclusion. In my opinion, the van falls within the term “rehabilitative service” set out in G.S. 97-29.
I find Derebery v. Pitt County Fire Marshall, 76 N.C. App. 67, 332 S.E. 2d 94 (1985) to be distinguishable. There, the house *758ordered purchased by the Commission was for the plaintiffs convenience, not his rehabilitation.
For these reasons, I must respectfully dissent and vote to affirm the Commission’s award.