Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

234 N.C. 446

67 S.E.2d 371

Hill v. DU BOSE

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided November 7, 1951

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1951-11-07

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“average weekly wages before the injury and the average weekly wages which he is able to earn thereafter....”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 174 N.C. App. 561 - Lewis v. Craven Regional Medical Center

“Compensation must be based upon loss of wage-earning power rather than the amount actually received”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 174 N.C. App. 561 - Lewis v. Craven Regional Medical Center

Relies on Anderson v. Northwestern Motor Co. · Branham v. Denny Roll & Panel Co. · Dail v. Kellex Corp.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1951-11-07

How this case has been cited

Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently July 2011 · most notably Hendrix v. Linn-Corriher Corp. (1986), Pratt v. Central Upholstery Co. (1960)

29 state decisions

1001951196019701980199020002010decided

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 →

DeviN, C. J.

¶1 It is apparent from an examination of the'findings and award of the Industrial Commission, which were in all respects affirmed by the court below, that the award of compensation now made was based upon a finding as to the amount the claimant had earned since the date on which total permanent disability had ceased, rather than upon his capacity or ability to earn.

¶2 The statute, G-.S. 97-2 (i), defines disability as meaning “incapacity because of injury to earn the wages the employee was receiving at the time of injury in the same or any other employment.” The rule of compensation for partial disability prescribed by G.S. 97-30 is that the employer shall pay “to the injured employee during such disability, a weekly compensation equal to 60 per centum of the difference between his average weekly wages before the injury and the average weekly wages which he is able to earn thereafter.”

¶3 In Dail v. Kellex Corp., 233 N.C. 446, 64 S.E. 2d 438, it was said: “The disability of an employee because of an injury is to be measured by his capacity or incapacity to earn the wages he was receiving at the time of the injury. Branham v. Panel Co., 223 N.C. 233, 25 S.E. 2d 865; Anderson v. Motor Co., ante, p. 372 (233 N.C. 372, 64 S.E. 2d 265). Loss of earning capacity is the criterion.” Compensation must be based upon loss of wage-earning power rather than the amount actually re *448 ceived. It was intended by tbe statute to provide compensation only for loss of earning capacity. Hence, tbe finding tbat claimant bad earned $7 per week for tbe périod from 25 November, 1949, to 18 July, 1950, was not tbe proper basis for determining tbe award under tbe statute.

¶4 Tbe appellee concedes tbat in accord with tbe decision in Dail v. Kellex Corp., supra, tbe award of tbe Commission should be modified by eliminating tbe requirement tbat tbe case be beld open for 300 weeks.

¶5 While in other respects tbe findings of tbe Industrial Commission were supported by tbe evidence, we think in tbe particulars pointed out there was error in affirming tbe conclusions and award of tbe Commission, and accordingly tbe case is remanded to tbe end tbat sufficient findings, and proper conclusions and award thereon may be made by tbe Industrial Commission as tbe basis for judgment.

¶6 Error and remanded.

/234/nc/446 · .json · Public domain