Legal Opinion
Lumley v. Dancy Const. Co., Inc.
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
Decided February 4, 1986No. 8510IC742PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ARNOLD, Judge.
The defendants argue that “plaintiff Lumley cannot recover benefits under the North Carolina Workers’ Compensation Act because he does not suffer from an occupational disease which is characteristic of and peculiar to his employment as a carpenter’s helper.” We disagree.
An occupational disease is defined by G.S. 97-53(13) as:
Any disease, other than hearing loss covered in another subdivision of this section, which is proven to be due to causes and conditions which are characteristic of and peculiar to a particular trade, occupation or employment, but excluding all ordinary…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Booker v. Duke Medical CenterSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1979
- Cannon v. MillerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1985
- Glodenis v. American Brass Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1934
- State ex rel. Ohio Bell Telephone Co. v. KriseOhio Supreme Court · 1975
- Young v. City of HuntsvilleCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 1976
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- J & B Slurry Seal Co. v. Mid-South Aviation, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1987
- Johnson v. City of Winston-SalemCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2008
- Gibbs v. Leggett and Platt, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1993
- In re the Appeal from the Civil Penalty Assessed for Violations of the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act Administered by the Department of Natural Resources & Community Development by HarrisCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1988
- Robbins v. Wake County Board of EducationCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2002
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.