Legal Opinion

Fowler v. B. E. & K. Construction, Inc.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided December 6, 1988No. 8810IC272PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

PHILLIPS, Judge.

Without considering whether Dr. Glinski’s testimony as to the worker having a general bodily disability due to his musculo-skeletal injuries was competent, we hold that the testimony is irrelevant to the appeal for the reason that in the proceedings below no issue as to Fowler having a general bodily disability was raised. The proceeding below was initiated, conducted and reviewed to determine only whether Fowler’s bruised kidney was permanently injured and if so whether under the provisions of G.S. 97-31(24) any further compensation was due therefor. Since an appeal must…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Click v. Pilot Freight Carriers, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1980
  2. Little v. Penn Ventilator Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1986
  3. Moses v. BartholomewSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1953
  4. Mills v. DunkSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1965

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Phillips v. U.S. Air, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1995
  2. Harris v. Laboratory Corp. of AmericaNorth Carolina Industrial Commission · 1998
  3. Phillips v. U.S. Air, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1995
  4. Tinajero v. Balfour Beatty InfrastructureNorth Carolina Industrial Commission · 2010

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API