Legal Opinion · Dissent

Alexander II v. Weyerhaeuser Co.

North Carolina Industrial Commission

Decided August 6, 2003No. I.C. NO. 942624Published

1Dissent

While plaintiff has contracted the occupational disease of asbestosis, and more than likely his colon cancer was related to occupational exposure to asbestos, I must respectfully dissent from the majority decision to remand this case to reconsider an order of removal and pay 104 weeks of benefits pursuant to N.C. GEN. STAT § 97-61.5(b) under an estoppel theory.

NECESSARY ELEMENTS FOR ORDER OF REMOVAL/104 WEEKS

Removal from employment under § 97-61.5 requires a finding of at least two conditions: (1) that the plaintiff has a compensable claim for asbestosis; and (2) that plaintiff is currently…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Barber v. Babcock & Wilcox Construction Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1991
  2. Young v. . Whitehall Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1948
  3. Austin v. Continental General TireSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2001
  4. Honeycutt v. Carolina Asbestos Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1952
  5. Roberts v. Southeastern Magnesia & Asbestos Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1983

11 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