Radzisz v. Harley Davidson of Metrolina, Inc.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1DissentJustice Frye
I do not agree with the majority’s interpretation of N.C.G.S. § 97-10.2 of the Workers’ Compensation Act. I do not believe that it ensures that the legislative intent is accomplished. Nor do I agree that the “Settlement Stipulation and Agreement” entered into by the parties in this case acknowledges defendants’ entitlement to a subrogation lien. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.
The purpose of the Workers’ Compensation Act is to provide a swift and certain remedy to injured workers, as well as to ensure a limited and determinate liability for employers. Barnhardt v. Yellow Cab Co., 266 N.C.…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Hyler v. GTE Products Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1993
- Whitley v. Columbia Lumber Mfg. Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1986
- Barnhardt v. Yellow Cab CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1966
- Hieb v. LowerySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1996
- Radzisz v. Harley Davidson of Metrolina, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1996