Page 421 |
Previous | 421 of 820 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
In re Hawkins
these exceptions seriatim, nor do we discuss the question of
whether each of these assignments of error presents but a single
question for review. Nye v. Development Co., 10 N.C. App.
676, 179 S.E. 2d 795 (1971), cert. denied 278 N.C. 702, 181 S.E.
2d 603 (1971). Suffice it to say that we have examined each
of these exceptions and we find no error sufficiently prejudicial
to warrant a new trial.
By assignment of error No. 2 respondents contend that
error was committed in admitting evidence and making findings
with respect to charges brought to the attention of the respond-ents
for the first time. The assignment embraces 15 exceptions.
Eight of the exceptions relate to one patient of Dr. Nash. Close
examination of the record reveals that the discrepancies in-cluded
in finding of the Board are sub~stantially the same as
the discrepancies listed in the notice to Dr. Nash. This patient
was one of 18 patients treated by Dr. Nash with respect to
whom both committees and the Board found discrepancies. We
have carefully examined all these 15 exceptions, and we find
that the findings and the notice are substantially the same,
or that the charges with respect to that exception were elimi-nated
from consideration, or that the charges to which the
exceptions related were not included in the findings of the Board.
This assignment is overruled.
[5] By respondents' remaining assignments of error (Nos. 5,
8 and 13), they contend that the Board and the court erred in
failing to dismiss the charges because of the insufficiency of
the evidence. Respondents do not contend that the findings of the
Board are not supported by competent evidence. This candor
is commendable. They do seem to take the position that the
Superior Court is to weigh the evidence and make its own in-dependent
determination of the matters in dispute as in the
case of consent reference. Board of Dental Examiners v. Grady,
268 N.C. 541, 151 S.E. 2d 25 (1966). It is true that at the time
of the appeal in Grady, G.S. 90-41 required the matter on
appeal from the Board of Dental Examiners to be heard in the
superior court as in the case of consent references. However
the 1967 General Assembly amended G.S. 90-41 and that proviso
was deleted. The General Assembly of 1967 included the North
Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners in G.S. 150-9, and
the scope of review of the Board's decisions is covered by G.S.
150-27. This scope of review was discussed by Justice Parker
Object Description
| Title | North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports [v.017, Fall Session Session 1972 - Spring Session 1973] |
| Creator | North Carolina. Court of Appeals. |
| Date | 1973 |
| Subjects | Law reports, digests, etc.--North Carolina; Court records--North Carolina |
| Place | North Carolina, United States |
| Description | Volume 17, Fall Session Session 1972 - Spring Session 1973. Cited as 17 N.C.App. The North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports are the official report of opinions of the North Carolina Court of Appeals. Includes cases and other information about the courts of North Carolina. |
| Publisher | Court of Appeals of North Carolina |
| Agency-Current | North Carolina Court of Appeals, Judicial Department |
| Rights | State Document see http://digital.ncdcr.gov/u?/p249901coll22,63754 |
| Collection | North Carolina State Documents Collection. State Library of North Carolina |
| Type | Text |
| Language | English |
| Format | Reports; Legal documents |
| Digital Characteristics-A | 36.1 MB; 820 p. |
| Serial Title | North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports |
| Digital Collection | North Carolina Digital State Documents Collection |
| Digital Format | application/pdf |
| Pres File Name-M | pubs_serial_courtofappealsreports_vol_017.pdf |
| Pres Local File Path-M | \Preservation_content\StatePubs\pubs_law\images_master\ |
| OCLC Number-Original | 1681248 |
Description
| Title | Page 421 |
| Full Text | In re Hawkins these exceptions seriatim, nor do we discuss the question of whether each of these assignments of error presents but a single question for review. Nye v. Development Co., 10 N.C. App. 676, 179 S.E. 2d 795 (1971), cert. denied 278 N.C. 702, 181 S.E. 2d 603 (1971). Suffice it to say that we have examined each of these exceptions and we find no error sufficiently prejudicial to warrant a new trial. By assignment of error No. 2 respondents contend that error was committed in admitting evidence and making findings with respect to charges brought to the attention of the respond-ents for the first time. The assignment embraces 15 exceptions. Eight of the exceptions relate to one patient of Dr. Nash. Close examination of the record reveals that the discrepancies in-cluded in finding of the Board are sub~stantially the same as the discrepancies listed in the notice to Dr. Nash. This patient was one of 18 patients treated by Dr. Nash with respect to whom both committees and the Board found discrepancies. We have carefully examined all these 15 exceptions, and we find that the findings and the notice are substantially the same, or that the charges with respect to that exception were elimi-nated from consideration, or that the charges to which the exceptions related were not included in the findings of the Board. This assignment is overruled. [5] By respondents' remaining assignments of error (Nos. 5, 8 and 13), they contend that the Board and the court erred in failing to dismiss the charges because of the insufficiency of the evidence. Respondents do not contend that the findings of the Board are not supported by competent evidence. This candor is commendable. They do seem to take the position that the Superior Court is to weigh the evidence and make its own in-dependent determination of the matters in dispute as in the case of consent reference. Board of Dental Examiners v. Grady, 268 N.C. 541, 151 S.E. 2d 25 (1966). It is true that at the time of the appeal in Grady, G.S. 90-41 required the matter on appeal from the Board of Dental Examiners to be heard in the superior court as in the case of consent references. However the 1967 General Assembly amended G.S. 90-41 and that proviso was deleted. The General Assembly of 1967 included the North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners in G.S. 150-9, and the scope of review of the Board's decisions is covered by G.S. 150-27. This scope of review was discussed by Justice Parker |
