Legal Opinion · Dissent

Robinson v. Weyerhaeuser Co.

North Carolina Industrial Commission

Decided July 28, 2003No. I.C. NO. 035198Published

1Dissent

I disagree with the majority's conclusion that plaintiff has asbestosis and that this case should be remanded to reconsider plaintiff's entitlement to 104 weeks of benefits pursuant to § 97-61.5(b) under an estoppel theory. The prerequisites for an order of removal under § 97-61.5(b) are:

Diagnosis of asbestosis or silicosis; and

Current employment that exposes plaintiff to the hazards of asbestosis or silicosis.

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-61.5(b); see Austin v. Continental GeneralTire, 141 N.C. App. 397, 540 S.E.2d 824 (2000) (J. Greene, dissenting),reversed and adopting dissenting opinion, 354 N.C.…

2Cases cited20 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. Barber v. Babcock & Wilcox Construction Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1991
  5. Young v. . Whitehall Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1948

15 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