McDonald v. Brunswick Electric Membership Corp.
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
ARNOLD, Judge.
Defendants argue that a new, fully-equipped van is not a reasonable and necessary treatment, care, or rehabilitative service within the meaning of G.S. 97-29 and that therefore the Commission’s decision ordering them to pay for the van purchased by plaintiff must be reversed. Defendants have agreed to pay for the special adaptive equipment installed in the van and only contest that part of the Commission’s ruling requiring them to bear the cost of the van itself. G.S. 97-29 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
In cases of total and permanent disability, compensation,…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- State v. RobertiOregon Supreme Court · 1982
- Deese v. Southeastern Lawn and Tree Expert Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1982
- Rorie v. Holly Farms Poultry Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1982
- Godwin Ex Rel. Godwin v. Swift & Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1967
- Claim of Nallan v. Motion Picture Studio Mechanics Union, Local No. 52New York Court of Appeals · 1976
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by28 opinions
- Quaker Oats Co. v. CihaSupreme Court of Iowa · 1996
- R & T Construction Co. v. JudgeCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1991
- Crouch v. West Virginia Workers' Compensation CommissionerWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1991
- Mickey v. City Wide MaintenanceMissouri Court of Appeals · 1999
- Mississippi Transp. Com'n v. DeweaseMississippi Supreme Court · 1997
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.