Legal Opinion

Ray v. Pet Parlor

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided March 15, 2005No. COA03-1600PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MARTIN, Chief Judge.

Plaintiff filed this workers’ compensation claim to recover for an injury to her face, sustained when she suffered a dog bite arising out of her employment as a dog groomer. Defendants admitted compens- ability and plaintiff received total temporary compensation while she was out of work and underwent cosmetic surgery “to correct misalignment of the vermillion border of plaintiff’s upper lip” due to the dog bite. Her plastic surgeon, Dr. Siciliano, determined that she had reached maximum medical improvement on 21 May 2001.

The deputy commissioner found that plaintiff had a…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Adams v. AVX Corp.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1998
  2. Holley v. Acts, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 2003
  3. Adams v. AVX CORPORATIONSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1999
  4. Goff v. Foster Forbes Glass DivisionCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2000
  5. Hedrick v. PPG IndustriesCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1997

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Richardson v. Maxim Healthcare/Allegis GroupCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2008
  2. Richardson v. MAXIM HEALTHCARE/ALLEGISCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2007
  3. Richardson v. Maxim Healthcare/Allegis GroupCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2008

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API