Schofield v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
BRANCH, Chief Justice.
Defendant first contends that the Commission erred in awarding medical expenses to Dr. Klenner because plaintiff was under the care of defendant’s physicians just prior to the Reidsville incident and was therefore without authority to select his own physician. Plaintiff maintains that he was confronted with an emergency and thus was justified in procuring the services of Dr. Klenner.
The authorities in the area of Workmen’s Compensation laws agree that, as a general rule,
an employer has the right, in the first instance, to select the physician, surgeon or hospital to…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Hall v. Thomason Chevrolet, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1965
- In Re WatsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1968
- Childers v. Parker's, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1968
- State ex rel. Commissioner of Insurance v. North Carolina Automobile Rate Administrative OfficeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1978
- Thomason v. Red Bird Cab Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1952
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by109 opinions
- Franklin v. Broyhill Furniture IndustriesCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1996
- Radica v. Carolina MillsCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1994
- Johnson v. Jones Group, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1996
- HCA Crossroads Residential Centers, Inc. v. North Carolina Department of Human ResourcesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1990
- Kanipe v. Lane UpholsteryCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2000
104 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.