Legal Opinion · Dissent

Futrell v. Resinall Corp.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided July 16, 2002No. COA01-703Published

1DissentGreene, Judge

I disagree with the majority that our case law requires a plaintiff who is attempting to prove an aggravation of his disease due to his employment to show he was also at a greater risk of contracting the disease than the general population, I therefore dissent in part I of the majority opinion.

For diseases not specifically listed in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-53, such as carpal tunnel syndrome, the claimant must show that his disease is considered occupational under section 97-53(13). N.C.G.S. § 97-53(13) (2001). The burden rests on the claimant to show that: (1) “ ‘a causal connection between the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Booker v. Duke Medical CenterSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1979
  2. Rutledge v. Tultex Corp./Kings YarnSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1983
  3. Walston v. Burlington IndustriesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1982
  4. Norris v. Drexel Heritage Furnishings, Inc./MascoCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2000
  5. Goodman v. Cone Mills Corp.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1985

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

Powered by the Exa API