Legal Opinion

Donnell v. Cone Mills Corp.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided January 18, 1983No. 8210IC152PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ARNOLD, Judge.

DEFENDANT’S APPEAL

The substantive issue on this appeal is whether plaintiff’s earning capacity was reduced as a result of byssinosis contracted while working for the defendant. If so, then he is disabled under G.S. 97-2(9) and our case law. See, e.g., Wood v. Stevens & Co., 297 N.C. 636, 651, 256 S.E. 2d 692, 701 (1979). Because byssinosis is an occupational disease under G.S. 97-53(13), it is compensable under G.S. 97-52.

The burden of proof of showing a disability is on the plaintiff. Hall v. Chevrolet Co., 263 N.C. 569, 139 S.E. 2d 857 (1965). To conclude that plaintiff is…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Hilliard v. Apex Cabinet Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1982
  2. Sparks v. Mountain Breeze Restaurant & Fish House, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1982
  3. Stevenson v. City of DurhamSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1972
  4. Hall v. Thomason Chevrolet, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1965
  5. Wood v. J. P. Stevens & Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1979

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Heffner v. Cone Mills Corp.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1986
  2. Harris v. North American ProductsCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1997
  3. Raper v. Mansfield Systems, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2008
  4. Thomas v. Hanes PrintablesCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1988
  5. Preslar v. Cannon Mills Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1986

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API