# Brooks v. Ansco & Associates, Inc.

> Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 17, 1994 · 114 N.C. App. 711

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9585509

## Case

- **Full name:** John C. Brooks, Commissioner of Labor of North Carolina v. Ansco & Associates, Inc.
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of North Carolina
- **Decided:** May 17, 1994
- **Citations:** 114 N.C. App. 711; 443 S.E.2d 89; 1994 CCH OSHD 30,416; 16 OSHC (BNA) 1803; 1994 N.C. App. LEXIS 508
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by John
- **Judges:** Greene, Johnson, John
- **Cited by:** 18 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/9585509

## Opinion text

Judge JOHN
concurring in the result.
I respectfully disagree with the majority’s assertion that the standard of this Court’s review is governed by application of N.C.G.S. § 150B-51(b) (1991) to the decision of the Review Board. Rather, the standard under N.C.G.S. § 150B-52 (1991) (providing for “appeal to the appellate division from the final judgment of the superior court”) is “the same ... as it is for other civil cases,” In re Kozy, 91 N.C. App. 342, 344 , 371 S.E.2d 778, 779-80 (1988), disc. review denied, 323 N.C. 704 , 377 S.E.2d 225 (1989); that is, consideration of “whether the trial court committed any errors of law.” American Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Ingram, 63 N.C. App. 38, 41 , 303 S.E.2d 649, 651 (emphasis added) (citations omitted), disc. review denied, 309 N.C. 819 , 310 S.E.2d 348 (1983).
Moreover, Brooks, Com’r of Labor v. Grading Co., 303 N.C. 573, 579-81 , 281 S.E.2d 24, 28-29 (1981) cited by the majority, itself relies heavily upon Savings and Loan League v. Credit Union Comm., 302 N.C. 458, 463-64 , 276 S.E.2d 404, 407-09 (1981). In that case, the Supreme Court remarked that the Court of Appeals “recogniz[ed] that its review was governed by [then] G.S. 150A-51,” but then chided this Court for “failing] to specify under which of the above listed standards it reviewed the decisions of the superior court and the Commission.” Id. at 464 , 276 S.E.2d at 409 (emphasis added). The Savings and Loan League Court thereafter began its own analysis by deciding whether the superior court applied the correct standard in reviewing the agency’s actions. Id.
*719 Nonetheless, because in the case sub judice appellant’s assignment of error properly raises a question of law, see Employment Security Com. v. Kermon, 232 N.C. 342, 345 , 60 S.E.2d 580, 583 (1950), which requires de novo review, Brooks, Com’r. of Labor v. Rebarco, Inc., 91 N.C. App. 459, 464 , 372 S.E.2d 342, 345 (1988), and because I believe the majority in conducting such a review has reached the proper conclusion in its opinion, I concur in the result therein.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9585509. Public record. Not legal advice.