Martin Ex Rel. Martin v. Georgia-Pacific Corp.
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtMallahd, C.J.
It is well established in this State that the Workmen’s Compensation Act is not intended to provide general health and accident insurance, but its purpose is to provide compensation for those injuries which result from accidents which arise out of and in the course of the employment. Bryan v. Church, 267 N.C. 111, 147 S.E. 2d 633 (1966); Lewis v. Tobacco Co., 260 N.C. 410, 132 S.E. 2d 877 (1963); Anderson v. Motor Co. 233 N.C. 372, 64 S.E. 2d 265 (1951); Withers v. Black, 230 N.C. 428, 53 S.E. 2d 668 (1949). From an examination of the evidence presented, we think there was sufficient…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Anderson v. Northwestern Motor Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1951
- Perry v. American Bakeries CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1964
- Thornton v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1945
- Askew v. LEONARD TIRE COMPANYSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1965
- Withers v. BlackSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1949
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by39 opinions
- McNair v. Lend Lease Trucks, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1996
- Ramsey v. Southern Industrial Constructors Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2006
- Cauble v. Soft-Play, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1996
- Chandler v. Nello L. Teer Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1981
- Chavis v. TLC Home Health CareCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2005
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.