Legal Opinion

Mitchell v. Fieldcrest Mills, Inc.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided March 17, 1987No. 8610IC667PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

PARKER, Judge.

The sole question presented by defendant’s appeal is whether the evidence presented to the deputy commissioner was sufficient to support her finding that claimant is totally and permanently disabled. Defendant’s brief states that the primary basis for its argument is that claimant should be limited to the schedule for compensation provided in G.S. 97-31(23) for the total loss of use of the back. The statute states that this scheduled compensation “shall be in lieu of all other compensation.”

However, in Whitley v. Columbia Lumber Mfg. Co., 318 N.C. 89, 348 S.E. 2d 336 (1986), the…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Morrison v. Burlington IndustriesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1981
  2. Vause v. Vause Farm Equipment Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1951
  3. Whitley v. Columbia Lumber Mfg. Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1986
  4. McLean v. Roadway Express, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1982
  5. Fleming v. K-Mart Corp.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1985

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Demery v. Converse, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2000
  2. Fletcher v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1995
  3. Hicks v. Leviton Manufacturing Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1996
  4. Lewis v. Beachview Exxon Serv.North Carolina Industrial Commission · 2007
  5. Lewis v. Beachview Exxon Svc.North Carolina Industrial Commission · 2004

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