Creel v. Town of Dover

51 Citing cases

  1. Hunt v. Tender Loving Care

    153 N.C. App. 266 (N.C. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 20 times
    Holding that "going and coming" rule applied to a nursing aide, who worked solely for one patient with regular hours and was not required, during the day, to attend to several patients at different locations

    Our review of a decision of the Commission is limited to two issues: "(1) whether any competent evidence in the record supports the Commission's findings of fact, and (2) whether such findings of fact support the Commission's conclusion of law." Creel v. Town of Dover, 126 N.C. App. 547, 552, 486 S.E.2d 478, 480 (1997) (citing Moore v. Davis Auto Service, 118 N.C. App. 624, 627, 456 S.E.2d 847, 850 (1995)). The Commission's conclusions of law are reviewable . Grant v. Burlington Industries, Inc., 77 N.C. App. 241, 247, 335 S.E.2d 327, 332 (1985) (citation omitted).

  2. Munoz v. Caldwell Memorial Hosp

    171 N.C. App. 386 (N.C. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 9 times
    In Munoz, we held that the traveling salesman exception applied to the plaintiff in that case where the record revealed that at the time the plaintiff was involved in an automobile accident, the plaintiff had been working with her employer for only four days and had been assigned to care for patients at three different locations over those four days.

    "Whether an injury arises out of and in the course of a claimant's employment is a mixed question of fact and law[.]" Creel v. Town of Dover, 126 N.C.App. 547, 552, 486 S.E.2d 478, 481 (1997).          The "going and coming rule" states that "injuries sustained by an employee while going to or from work are not ordinarily compensable" because the injuries do not arise out of or in the course of employment.

  3. Hurley v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

    219 N.C. App. 607 (N.C. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 6 times
    Holding the Full Commission does not have authority to address issues other than those raised in Form 44

    We note that under N.C. Gen.Stat. § 97–90(c), the issue of attorney's fees arising from an opinion and award of the full commission would be appealable to the superior court, and thus would be subject to dismissal if appealed directly to this Court instead of the superior court. In Creel v. Town of Dover, 126 N.C.App. 547, 486 S.E.2d 478 (1997), the plaintiff appealed to this Court arguing that the full commission failed to address the issue of attorney's fees pursuant to N.C. Gen.Stat. § 97–90(c). Id. at 551, 486 S.E.2d at 480.

  4. Floyd v. Executive Personnel Group

    669 S.E.2d 822 (N.C. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 9 times
    Holding that “arguments ... not raised before the Full Commission” will not be addressed on appeal

    " Whether an injury arises out of and in the course of ... employment is a mixed question of fact and law, and our review is thus limited to whether the findings and conclusions are supported by the evidence." Creel v. Town of Dover, 126 N.C.App. 547, 552, 486 S.E.2d 478, 481 (1997). The phrase " arising out of" refers to the requirement that there be some causal connection between the injury and claimant's employment.

  5. Floyd v. National Benefits America

    No. COA08-439 (N.C. Ct. App. Dec. 1, 2008)

    Whether an injury arises out of and in the course of . . . employment is a mixed question of fact and law, and our review is thus limited to whether the findings and conclusions are supported by the evidence." Creel v. Town of Dover, 126 N.C. App. 547, 552, 486 S.E.2d 478, 481 (1997). The phrase "arising out of" refers to the requirement that there be some causal connection between the injury and claimant's employment.

  6. Chavis v. TLC Home Health Care

    172 N.C. App. 366 (N.C. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 24 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Noting that “[t]he full Commission's findings of fact are conclusive on appeal when supported by competent evidence even if there is evidence to support a contrary finding”

    North Carolina adheres to the rule that employees whose work requires travel away from the employer's premises are within the course of their employment continuously during such travel, except when there is a distinct departure for a personal errand. Creel v. Town of Dover, 126 N.C. App. 547, 556, 486 S.E.2d 478, 483 (1997); Cauble, 124 N.C. App. at 528, 477 S.E.2d at 679. Ms. Chavis's work required her to continuously travel to and from different patients' homes.

  7. Jacobs v. Sara Lee Corp.

    577 S.E.2d 696 (N.C. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 3 times
    In Jacobs, the claimant admitted that “it was certainly reasonable for the Commission to find that the ball game was a personal departure” from the business trip, but, according to the claimant, the Commissioner erred when he found that the claimant “was still on his deviation to the ball game when he fell” because he was going to the event at Dave & Buster's.

    Id. at § 19.32.Creel v. Town of Dover, 126 N.C. App. 547, 557, 486 S.E.2d 478, 483 (1997). In Creel, plaintiff, on an errand for his employer, made a personal deviation, and was injured upon returning to complete the errand.

  8. Hollin v. Johnston Council on Aging

    181 N.C. App. 77 (N.C. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 14 times

    This is because “ ‘the risk of injury while traveling to and from work is one common to the public at large,’ " Munoz, 171 N.C.App. at 389, 614 S.E.2d at 451 (quoting Creelv. Town of Dover, 126 N.C.App. 547, 555, 486 S.E.2d 478, 482 (1997) ), and “[a]n employee is not engaged in the business of the employer while driving his or her personal vehicle to the place of work or while leaving the place of employment to go home." Hunt, 153 N.C.App. at 269, 569 S.E.2d at 678.

  9. Cook v. Erect All

    176 N.C. App. 407 (N.C. Ct. App. 2006)

    This Court must affirm the Commission's determination if (1) its findings are supported by competent record evidence, and (2) its conclusions are supported by findings of fact and applicable law. See Creel v. Town of Dover, 126 N.C. App. 547, 552, 486 S.E.2d 478, 480 (1997) (noting this Court's standard of review). The gravamen of Mr. Cook's argument is that he would have preferred for the trial court to accept his testimony as true rather than the testimony of V.R. Phipps.

  10. Fontenot v. Ammons Springmoor

    176 N.C. App. 93 (N.C. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 6 times

    As this determination is supported by the record, it must be affirmed. See Creel v. Town of Dover, 126 N.C.App. 547, 552, 486 S.E.2d 478, 480 (1997) (noting that the standard of review for an opinion and award of the Commission is "(1) whether any competent evidence in the record supports the Commission's findings of fact, and (2) whether such findings of fact support the Commission's conclusions of law[.]"); Hobbs v. Clean Control Corp., 154 N.C.App. 433, 435, 571 S.E.2d 860, 862 (2002) ("The Commission's findings of fact are conclusive on appeal if supported by competent evidence, notwithstanding evidence that might support a contrary finding.").         2.