Case Title: Freeman v. SCM Corp.

Citation: 316 S.E.2d 81

Docket Number: 81A84

State: north-carolina

Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

Date: 1984-06-05T00:00:00Z

Document:
316 S.E.2d 81 (1984) Thelma FREEMAN v. SCM CORPORATION. No. 81A84. Supreme Court of North Carolina. June 5, 1984. *82 Pollock, Fullenwider, Cunningham & Patterson, P.A. by Bruce T. Cunningham, Jr., Southern Pines, for plaintiff-appellant. William D. Sabiston, Jr., Carthage, for defendant-appellee. Golding, Crews, Meekins, Gordon & Gray by James P. Crews, and Weinstein, Sturges, Odom, Groves, Bigger, Jonas & Campbell, P.A., John J. Doyle, Jr., Charlotte, for Radiator Specialty Company, amicus curiae. PER CURIAM. After reviewing the record and briefs, and hearing oral argument on the question presented, we conclude that the result reached by the majority below is correct. Plaintiff's remedies under the Workers' Compensation Act are exclusive and she is therefore precluded from recovering against her employer in this independent negligence action. The trial court properly granted defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Writing for the majority in the Court of Appeals, Judge Arnold explained: "Having already selected one avenue of recovery, plaintiff is precluded from maintaining a tort action." 66 N.C.App. at 343, 311 S.E.2d at 77 (1984) (emphasis added). We wish to make it abundantly clear that in fact plaintiff had no "selection" as to the appropriate avenue of recovery for her injuries. General Statute 97-10.1 provides that: Since plaintiff was here covered by and subject to the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act, her rights and remedies against defendant employer were determined by the Act and she was required to pursue them in the North Carolina Industrial Commission. See, e.g., Bryant v. Dougherty, 267 N.C. 545, 148 S.E.2d 548 (1966); McCune v. Rhodes-Rhyne Mfg. Co., 217 N.C. 351, 8 S.E.2d 219 (1940). She could not, in lieu of this avenue of recovery, institute a common law action against her employer in the civil courts of this State. *83 The decision of the Court of Appeals is modified to the extent that it may imply that plaintiff was free to elect the forum in which to pursue her legal remedies against defendant. In all other respects, the decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. MODIFIED and AFFIRMED.