RALEIGH
Appointed government officials in North Carolina keep their authority to carry out their job until their successors take the oath of office, the N.C. Supreme Court ruled yesterday, restoring a workers' compensation-claim award approved by an outgoing state official.
Without a dissenting opinion, the seven justices reversed a ruling by the N.C. Court of Appeals that threw out the February 2007 decision ordering Denny Nicholson Inc. of Lexington to pay its injured truck driver $359 a week, plus a 10 percent penalty and attorney fees.
Attorneys for the company argued that the award was void because then-Gov. Mike Easley appointed someone to replace Industrial Commission member Thomas Bolch three days before the award he signed was filed.
The Supreme Court found that Bolch's powers remained intact at the time.
"We conclude that the authority of an appointed officer continues until the date on which his successor takes the oath of the office in question and thereby becomes duly qualified to begin performing the duties of that office," Justice Robin Hudson wrote.
Bolch was a member of the majority that ruled 2-to-1 in favor of worker Robert Baxter on Feb. 5, 2007. Easley signed letters dated Feb. 2 appointing Danny McDonald of Old Fort "effective immediately" and alerting Bolch of the change. MacDonald was sworn in Feb. 9.
Attorneys for the company said that Bolch no longer held the office when the award was filed with the commission, so no majority existed. The commission rejected their argument, but the Court of Appeals voided the award and ordered a rehearing.
The state constitution says that all state officers "whether appointed or elected, shall hold their positions until other appointments are made or, if the offices are elective, until their successors are chosen and qualified." The constitution's drafters would have referred the word "qualified" to appointments as well if appointees needed to be sworn in first, too, before taking their posts, Denny Nicholson's attorneys said.
Citing a 1918 opinion, Hudson pointed out that it was the long-standing policy of the state to avoid vacancies to ensure that someone is always available to perform official duties.
"Voiding actions taken by a holdover official during the time between the announcement of a successor and that successor's swearing-in could promote disruption and delay completion of important work already performed on the state's behalf," she wrote.
The legislature also had passed laws requiring an oath be taken before assuming an office and directing appointed officials to remain at their post until the successor is duly qualified, which Hudson wrote is consistent with the constitution.
Nothing suggested that the constitution's drafters wanted to limit the power of the General Assembly to guard against vacancies, she said in returning the case to the Court of Appeals to consider other issues challenged by the company.
Email
Facebook
Google
Twitter
Favorites
More
Advertisement