Legal Opinion

Strickland v. Burlington Industries, Inc.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided November 3, 1987No. 8610IC1273PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ORR, Judge.

Plaintiff contends that since the Industrial Commission made a finding of permanent disability, it should have also made findings regarding her loss of wage earning capacity under N.C.G.S. §§ 97-29 or 97-30 and then made an award. Often an award under N.C.G.S. § 97-29, and by implication N.C.G.S. § 97-30, better fulfills the policy of the Workers’ Compensation Act than an award under N.C.G.S. § 97-31(24), because it is a more favorable remedy and is more directly related to compensating a worker’s inability to work. West v. Bladenboro Cotton Mills, 62 N.C. App. 267, 302 S.E. 2d 645…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Gupton v. Builders TransportSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1987
  2. West v. Bladenboro Cotton Mills, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1983

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Shaw v. United Parcel ServiceCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1994
  2. Kenedy v. Workforce TempsNorth Carolina Industrial Commission · 2002
  3. Lamb v. Hickory Springs Mfg. Co.North Carolina Industrial Commission · 2003
  4. Leigh v. Weyerhaeuser Co.North Carolina Industrial Commission · 2003
  5. MacKey v. Providence Designer HomesNorth Carolina Industrial Commission · 1995

2 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