Either the claimant or the State may, within 30 days after receipt of the decision and order of the full Commission, to be sent by registered mail, certified mail, or email, but not thereafter, appeal from the decision of the Commission to the Court of Appeals. Such appeal shall be for errors of law only under the same terms and conditions as govern appeals in ordinary civil actions, and the findings of fact of the Commission shall be conclusive if there is any competent evidence to support them. The appellant shall cause to be prepared a statement of the case as required by the rules of the Court of Appeals. A copy of this statement shall be served on the respondent within 45 days from the entry of the appeal taken; within 20 days after such service, the respondent shall return the copy with the respondent's approval or specified amendments endorsed or attached; if the case be approved by the respondent, it shall be filed with the clerk of the Court of Appeals as a part of the record; if not returned with objections within the time prescribed, it shall be deemed approved. The chair of the Industrial Commission shall have the power, in the exercise of the chair's discretion, to enlarge the time in which to serve statement of case on appeal and exceptions thereto or counterstatement of case.
If the case on appeal is returned by the respondent with objections as prescribed, or if a countercase is served on appellant, the appellant shall immediately request the chair of the Industrial Commission to fix a time and place for settling the case. If the appellant delays longer than 15 days after the respondent serves the countercase or exceptions to request the chair to settle the case on appeal, and delays for such period to mail, as provided in this section, the case and countercase or exceptions to the chair, then the exceptions filed by the respondent shall be allowed; or the countercase served shall constitute the case on appeal; but the time may be extended by agreement of counsel.
The chair shall forthwith notify the attorneys of the parties to appear before the chair for that purpose at a certain time and place, which time shall not be more than 20 days from the receipt of the request. At the time and place stated, the chair of the Industrial Commission or the chair's designee shall settle and sign the case and deliver a copy to the attorneys of each party. The appellant shall within five days thereafter file it with the clerk of the Court of Appeals, and if the appellant fails to do so the respondent may file the respondent's copy.
No appeal bond or supersedeas bond shall be required of State departments or agencies. (1951, c. 1059, s. 3; 1967, c. 655, s. 1; 1987 (Reg. Sess., 1988), c. 1087, s. 4; 2020-78, s. 16.1(a); 2025-25, s. 29(2).)
Notes of Decisions
Holt v. N.C. Dep't of Transp., 781 S.E.2d 697 (N.C. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 8× “I would reverse the Commission’s decision for two reasons: (1) DOT’s breach of duty was not an actual cause of plaintiffs’ injuries; and (2) even if actual cause was established, I would find that the intentional criminal acts of Stasko and Atkinson could not have been…”
Medley v. North Carolina Dep't of Corr., 412 S.E.2d 654 (N.C. 1992).
· cites it 6× “Plaintiff appealed the Commission's decision to the Court of Appeals pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 143-293. *656 The Court of Appeals agreed that Dr.”
In re Hughes, 785 S.E.2d 111 (N.C. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 7× “N.C. Gen.Stat. § 143-293, which concerns appeals from the Industrial Commission when acting as a court for the purposes of the Tort Claims Act, states: "appeal shall be for errors of law only under the same terms and conditions as govern appeals in ordinary civil actions [.”
Norman v. North Carolina Dep't of Transp., 588 S.E.2d 42 (N.C. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 6× “Under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-293 , either party may appeal a decision of the Commission: Such appeal shall be for errors of law only under the same terms and conditions as govern appeals in ordinary civil actions, and the findings of fact of the Commission shall be conclusive if…”
Coulter v. Catawba Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 657 S.E.2d 428 (N.C. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 6× “N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-293 governs appeals from the Industrial Commission to this Court, and provides in pertinent part: .”
Hummel v. Univ. of North Carolina, 576 S.E.2d 124 (N.C. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 8× “This Court can review the decision of the full Industrial Commission "for errors of law only under the same terms and conditions as govern appeals in ordinary civil actions, and the findings of fact of the Commission shall be conclusive if there is any competent evidence to…”
In Re Redmond Ex Rel. Nichols, 369 N.C. 490 (N.C. 2017).
· cites it 2× “53 of the Compensation Program statutes provides for multiple stages of review within the Commission and an ultimate appeal as of right from a decision of the full Commission to the Court of Appeals “in accordance with the procedures set forth in G.”
Smith v. N.C. Dep't of Transp., 576 S.E.2d 345 (N.C. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 4× “"Negligence and contributory negligence are mixed questions of law and fact and, upon appeal the reviewing court must determine whether facts found by the Commission support its conclusion of .”
Multiple v. North Carolina Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 626 S.E.2d 666 (N.C. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 4× “" Finally, plaintiffs asserted that "[t]he duties described hereinabove were not for the benefit of the public at large, but for the benefit of the specific individuals confined in the subject jail." Deputy Commissioner Edward Garner, Jr.”
Pate v. N.C. Dep't of Transp., 626 S.E.2d 661 (N.C. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 4× “' N.C. Gen.Stat. § 143-293 [(2005)]. As long as there is competent evidence in support of the Commission's decision, it does not matter that there is evidence supporting a contrary finding.”
Viar v. N.C. Dep't of Transp., 590 S.E.2d 909 (N.C. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 4× “The record reveals plaintiff's unnumbered assignments of error as follows: The North Carolina Industrial Commission erred by disallowing the deposition testimony of Dr.”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-293(2001) — 1 case
Hummel v. Univ. of North Carolina, 576 S.E.2d 124 (N.C. Ct. App. 2003).
“This Court can review the decision of the full Industrial Commission "for errors of law only under the same terms and conditions as govern appeals in ordinary civil actions, and the findings of fact of the Commission shall be conclusive if there is any competent evidence to…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.