Legal Opinion · Dissent

Roebuck v. Weyerhaeuser Co.

North Carolina Industrial Commission

Decided April 4, 2003No. I.C. NO. 005229Published

1Dissent

I agree with the majority's finding that a person who retires prior to the diagnosis of asbestosis is not entitled to benefits pursuant to § 97-61.5(b). See Austin v. Continental General Tire,141 N.C. App. 397, 540 S.E.2d 824 (2000) (J. Greene, dissenting),reversed and adopting dissenting opinion, 354 N.C. 344, 553 S.E.2d 680 (2001); Abernathy v. Sandoz Chemicals, 151 N.C. App. 252, 565 S.E.2d 218,review denied, 356 N.C. 432, 572 S.E.2d 421 (2002). The prerequisites for an order of removal under § 97-61.5(b) are:(1) Diagnosis of asbestosis or silicosis; and(2) Current employment that exposes…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
  2. Rutledge v. Tultex Corp./Kings YarnSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1983
  3. Young v. Hickory Business FurnitureSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2000
  4. Austin v. Continental General TireSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2001
  5. Clark v. ITT Grinnell Industrial Piping, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2000

8 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