# Davis v. North Carolina Department of Human Resources

> Court of Appeals of North Carolina · December 19, 1995 · 121 N.C. App. 105

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9567394

## Case

- **Full name:** HAROLD DAVIS, Administrator of the Estate of Phillip Davis, Plaintiff v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, Defendant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of North Carolina
- **Decided:** December 19, 1995
- **Citations:** 121 N.C. App. 105; 465 S.E.2d 2; 1995 N.C. App. LEXIS 1049
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Martin
- **Judges:** Greene, McGee, Martin, Mark
- **Cited by:** 24 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9567394

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that the plaintiff could recover even though the negligent employee was not named in the affidavit where the affidavit named the employee’s supervising physician
- emphasizing “need for the appellate division to articulate a consistent standard of review when considering the Commission’s factual findings”

## Opinion text

Judge MARTIN, Mark D.,
concurring.
I write separately to emphasize the need for the appellate division to articulate a consistent standard of review when considering the Commission’s factual findings. Compare Andrews v. Fulcher Tire Sales and Service, 120 N.C. App. 602, 605 , 463 S.E.2d 425, 427 (1995) (this Court bound by Commission’s findings if supported by “sufficient competent evidence”) with Strickland v. Carolina Classics Catfish, Inc., 119 N.C. App. 97, 102 , 458 S.E.2d 10, 13 (1995) (this Court’s review limited to determination of whether Commission’s findings are supported by “any competent evidence”). The majority opinion follows the standard of review articulated in Andrews v. Fulcher, supra, and concludes there is sufficient competent evidence to uphold the Commission’s findings. Because I believe the Commission’s findings should be affirmed whether reviewed under the “any competent evidence” standard, or, alternatively, the “sufficient competent evidence” standard, I concur in the majority opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9567394. Public record. Not legal advice.