Legal Opinion · Dissent

Payne v. Charlotte Heating Air Conditioning

North Carolina Industrial Commission

Decided July 14, 2003No. I.C. NO. 610609Published

1Dissent

I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion for three reasons: (1) plaintiff has not established that he has asbestosis; (2) plaintiff's death claim is not properly before the Commission; and (3) plaintiff's death claim would be barred by § 97-61.6.

PLAINTIFF HAS NOT ESTABLISHED ASBESTOSIS

I disagree with the majority's conclusion that plaintiff has asbestosis. "Asbestosis" is statutorily defined as "characteristic fibrotic condition of the lungs caused by the inhalation of asbestos dust." N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-62. Asbestosis is a medical condition that is to be determined by current,…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
  2. Young v. Hickory Business FurnitureSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2000
  3. Davis v. NC Granite CorporationSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1963
  4. Goff v. Foster Forbes Glass DivisionCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2000
  5. McDonald's Corp. v. DwyerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1994

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