Legal Opinion

Harrell v. Harriet & Henderson Yarn

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided April 6, 1982No. 8110IC712PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ARNOLD, Judge.

I

Plaintiff first assigns error to the Commission’s failure to award plaintiff benefits under the version of G.S. 97-31(24) in effect at the time she became disabled. We agree that, in occupational disease cases, the date of “injury” is deemed to be the date of disability. See Frady v. Groves Thread, 56 N.C. App. 61, 286 S.E. 2d 844 (1982). However, as defendant correctly points out in its cross-appeal, injury caused by an occupational disease does not fall within the scope of G.S. 97-31(24).

Until the passage of G.S. 97-52, some six years after adoption of the Workers’…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Hansel v. Sherman TextilesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1981
  2. Withers v. BlackSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1949
  3. Frady v. Groves Thread/General Accident Ins.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1982
  4. Burton v. American National InsuranceCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1971

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Grant v. Burlington Industries, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1985
  2. Grant v. Burlington Industries, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1985
  3. Grant v. Burlington Industries, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1985
  4. Harrell v. Harriet & Henderson YarnsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1985
  5. Harrell v. Harriet & Henderson YarnsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1985

1 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