Legal Opinion
McCuiston v. Addressograph-Multigraph Corp.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Decided July 7, 1983No. 627PA82PublishedCited by 21 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MARTIN, Justice.
The sole question for review is whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that as a part of his prima facie case plaintiff must prove that the sound which caused his hearing loss was of intensity of 90 dBA or more. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-53(28)(a) (1979). We hold that the Court of Appeals did so err, and we reverse and remand.
N.C.G.S. 97-53(28) provides that an employee may recover compensation for “[l]oss of hearing caused by harmful noise in the employment.” The statute continues:
a. The term “harmful noise” means sound in employment capable of producing occupational loss…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Matter of BanksSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1978
- State v. HartSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1975
- Hobbs v. County of MooreSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1966
- Watts v. BrewerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1956
3Cited by21 opinions
- Clark v. ITT Grinnell Industrial Piping, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2000
- Austin v. Continental General TireCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2000
- Corban v. Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C., Et Al.Ohio Supreme Court · 2016
- Abernathy v. Sandoz Chemicals/Clariant Corp.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2002
- Keel v. H & v. INC.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1992
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.