Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

205 N.C. 310

171 S.E 87

Lee v. Rose's 5-10-25c Stores

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided October 11, 1933

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1933-10-11

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1933-10-11

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently June 1971

5 state decisions

3019331940195019601970decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Pee Oueiam.

¶1 The hearing commissioner found that “the plaintiff in tbis ease signed an agreement for compensation in 1930. Compensation was paid and tbe last payment was made on 19 July, 1930. Tbe plain *311 tiff claims to have notified tbe employer on 7 August, 1931, of tbe recurrence of tbe disability caused by tbe injury on 14 May, 1930. Tbe first notice of a recurrence of disability was filed witb tbe Industrial Commission on 2 May, 1932, or nearly two years after tbe final receipt was signed by tbe plaintiff.”

¶2 Section 46 of tbe Workmen’s Compensation Act, C. S., 8081 (bbb), provides tbat “no.review shall be made after twelve months from the date of tbe last payment of compensation pursuant to an award under this chapter.”

¶3 There was competent evidence to support tbe findings of tbe Industrial Commission tbat tbe last payment of compensation was made on 19 July, 1930. Tbe statute is plain and unambiguous, and no reason occurs why it should not be enforced according to the plain provisions.

¶4 Affirmed.

/205/nc/310 · .json · Public domain