Court Opinion

ID: 9569971
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:19:00.295192+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:04:28.660157
License: Public Domain

Justice MITCHELL
dissenting.
I share the views expressed in Part II of the opinion of the majority. With regard to that part of the opinion, however, it is clearer to me than to the majority that the Commission erroneously perceived its function in this case as that of an appellate tribunal rather than that of an original trial tribunal. It is apparent to me that this misperception unavoidably caused the Commission to fail to perform the functions of determining the credibility, weight, and sufficiency of the evidence and of finding facts and drawing conclusions of law from those facts. These functions are reserved by law exclusively for the Commission. N.C.G.S. 105-342(d). The opinion of the majority and the result reached therein, however, place this Court in the position of performing the Commission’s functions or most of them.
I would hold that the Commission’s failure in this case to perform the functions reserved exclusively to it by law requires that its order be vacated and the case remanded to it for a new hearing ab initio. I think it neither necessary nor desirable at this *200time for the Court to reach or decide any issues other than those addressed in Part II of the opinion of the majority.
Justice Meyer joins in this dissenting opinion.