Brown v. City of Burlington, I.C. NOS. 151055, 151364, 207006.

Darryl Brown was employed by the City of Burlington and sustained multiple injuries in 2000 and 2001 while in the course of employment.
The injuries: Jan. 25, 2000 (neck strain pushing snow), Aug. 7, 2000 (neck strain entering van), and Dec. 14, 2001 (back injury from a chair fall; not admitted as compensable).
This matter was consolidated under I.C. File Nos. 151364, 151055 and 207006, with a consolidation order entered Nov. 1, 2002.
A consent order approved Aug. 4, 2006 fixed Brown’s average weekly wage at $431.20 and compensation rate at $287.48.
Brown has continuously received weekly compensation of $287.48 since Feb. 2002; six late payments occurred prior to Aug. 2010, with a 10% penalty paid.
Form 60s dated May 2, 2006, reflecting $431.20 as Brown’s average weekly wage were prepared by the employer’s carrier; Human Resources signed them.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the consent order should be set aside	Brown contends the consent order was valid and should not be disturbed.	Defendants argue the consent order was entered due to mutual mistake of law and may be set aside.	Denied; consent order not set aside.

Swain v. C N Evans Trucking Co., 126 N.C. App. 332, 484 S.E.2d 845 (1997) (mutual mistake of fact; law issues affect validity)
Foster v. Carolina Marble and Tile Co., 132 N.C. App. 505, 513 S.E.2d 75 (1999) (mutual mistake of law vs. fraud/undue influence)
Swain v. C N Evans Trucking Co. (second mention), 126 N.C. App. 332, 484 S.E.2d 845 (1997) (definition of law vs. fact in determining consent order validity)