Legal Opinion · Dissent

Grant v. Burlington Industries, Inc.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided October 15, 1985No. 8410IC1352Published

1Dissent

Judge WEBB

dissenting.

I dissent to that portion of the opinion which holds that the plaintiff is entitled to compensation under G.S. 97-31(24). I believe the reasoning of Harrell v. Yarns, 56 N.C. App. 697, 289 S.E. 2d 846 (1982), disc. rev. granted, Harrell v. Harriett and Henderson Yarns, 309 N.C. 191, 305 S.E. 2d 733 (1983), is sound and we are *253bound by that case. Until the passage of G.S. 97-52 occupational diseases were not injuries by accident within the meaning of the Workers’ Compensation Act. G.S. 97-52 provides in part:

Disablement or death of an employee resulting from an…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. West v. Bladenboro Cotton Mills, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1983
  2. Cook v. Bladenboro Cotton Mills, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1983
  3. Harrell v. Harriet & Henderson YarnCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1982

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

Powered by the Exa API