Legal Opinion · Dissent

Radzisz v. Harley Davidson of Metrolina, Inc.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided May 9, 1997No. 411PA96Published

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

  1. Hyler v. GTE Products Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1993
  2. Whitley v. Columbia Lumber Mfg. Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1986
  3. Barnhardt v. Yellow Cab CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1966
  4. Hieb v. LowerySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1996
  5. Radzisz v. Harley Davidson of Metrolina, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1996

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

Powered by the Exa API