Legal Opinion

Lloyd v. Jenkins Context Co.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided May 20, 1980No. 7910IC128PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WEBB, Judge.

In order to bring himself within the coverage of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, the claimant has the burden of proving that the employer-employee relationship existed. The reviewing court is not bound by the finding of this jurisdictional fact by the Industrial Commission. This Court must make its own finding from a consideration of all the evidence in the case. See Lucas v. Stores, 289 N.C. 212, 221 S.E. 2d 257 (1976). G.S. 97-2(2) provides:

The term “employee” means every person engaged in an employment under any appointment or contract of hire or apprenticeship, express or…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Hayes v. . Elon CollegeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1944
  2. Lucas v. Li'l General StoresSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1976
  3. Askew v. LEONARD TIRE COMPANYSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1965

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Lemmerman v. A. T. Williams Oil Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1986
  2. Youngblood v. North State Ford Truck SalesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1988
  3. Barber v. Going West Transportation, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1999
  4. Durham v. McLambCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1982
  5. Doud v. K & G JANITORIAL SERVICESCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1984

11 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