holding that the Commission did not impermissibly discount the testimony of Dr. Alston since the Commission's findings "indicate that the Full Commission, in reaching its determination, considered the expert testimony of Dr. Alston" and since the Commission is not required to make "negative" findings "that it was rejecting evidence that would support a finding that Plaintiff was not depressed"
Summary of this case from Bowles v. Norandal, USA1998
holding that the Commission did not impermissibly discount the testimony of Dr. Alston since the Commission's findings "indicate that the Full Commission, in reaching its determination, considered the expert testimony of Dr. Alston" and since the Commission is not required to make "negative" findings "that it was rejecting evidence that would support a finding that Plaintiff was not depressed"
Summary of this case from Bowles v. Norandal, USAFull title:PETITIONS FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
Court:Supreme Court of North Carolina
Date published: Jan 1, 1998
It is well-established that "[t]he doctrine of res judicata precludes relitigation of final orders of the…
Quets v. Needham"The essential elements of res judicata are: (1) a final judgment on the merits in a prior suit; (2) an…