REED v. CAROLINA HOLDINGS ACE USA (2019)

Plaintiff Christopher Reed appeals the trial court's order dismissing his request for review of the Full Commission's denial of attorney's fees “on future benefits allowed by the Commission, specifically attendant care services provided by a family member.” In its dismissal order, the trial court relied on this Court's opinion in Saunders v. ADP TotalSource Fi Xi, Inc., ––– N.C. App. ––––, 791 S.E.2d 466 (2016). In Saunders, we held that the superior court lacks jurisdiction to review the Industrial Commission's decision denying attorney's fees to “determine whether attorney's fees can lawfully be deducted from an award of attendant care medical compensation” and that appeal on that issue must be made from the Commission to this Court, not to the trial court. ––– N.C. App. at ––––, 791 S.E.2d at 477.

We held this appeal in abeyance while the Supreme Court reviewed this Court's decision in Saunders. The Supreme Court issued its opinion in Saunders on 1 February 2019. Saunders v. ADP TotalSource Fi Xi, Inc., ––– N.C. ––––, 822 S.E.2d 857 (2019). The Supreme Court reversed this Court's decision and held that “the superior court had jurisdiction to take and consider additional evidence not previously considered by the Commission” and to “exercise its ‘discretion’ in reviewing the reasonableness or setting the amount of attorney's fees” under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-90(c). Id. at ––––, 822 S.E.2d at 858, 867.

Following the Supreme Court's decision in Saunders, this Court invited the parties to submit supplemental briefing discussing the impact of the Supreme Court's decision on this case. In their supplemental briefing, the parties agreed that, under Saunders, this Court must vacate the trial court's order and remand this case for the trial court to correctly apply the law.

We agree with the parties that we must vacate and remand this matter to the trial court, so that the trial court can conduct proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's decision in Saunders. See Stanback v. Stanback, 270 N.C. 497, 507, 155 S.E.2d 221, 229 (1967). Accordingly, we vacate the challenged order and remand for further proceedings.

VACATED AND REMANDED.

Report per Rule 30(e).

DIETZ, Judge.

Judges BRYANT and INMAN concur.