Harrell v. Harriet & Henderson Yarns
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1DissentJustice Meyer
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion.
The claimant cannot recover under G.S. § 97-29 or G.S. § 97-30 because the Commission found that her disability arose from and following her contraction of pulmonary fibrosis, a nonoccupational related condition, which she contracted long after her retirement from the defendant’s service. Likewise, claimant cannot recover under G.S. § 97-31(24) based upon findings of disability, presumed or proven, related to an occupational disease. If, indeed, disability exists, the recovery must be had pursuant to G.S. § 97-29 or 97-30.
This claimant has…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Booker v. Duke Medical CenterSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1979
- Rutledge v. Tultex Corp./Kings YarnSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1983
- Hansel v. Sherman TextilesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1981
- Anderson v. Northwestern Motor Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1951
- Morrison v. Burlington IndustriesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1981
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.