Legal Opinion · Dissent

Harrell v. Harriet & Henderson Yarns

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided November 5, 1985No. 198PA83Published

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

  1. Booker v. Duke Medical CenterSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1979
  2. Rutledge v. Tultex Corp./Kings YarnSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1983
  3. Hansel v. Sherman TextilesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1981
  4. Anderson v. Northwestern Motor Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1951
  5. Morrison v. Burlington IndustriesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1981

1 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