Title: Chinault v. Floyd S. Pike Elec. Contractors

State: north-carolina

Issuer: North Carolina Supreme Court

Document:

293 S.E.2d 147 (1982) Sharon B. CHINAULT, Widow; et al. v. FLOYD S. PIKE ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS, Employer United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co., Carrier, Defendants. No. 17PA82. Supreme Court of North Carolina. July 13, 1982. *148 Faw, Folger, Sharpe & White by Cama C. Merritt, Mount Airy, for plaintiffs-appellants. Hutchins, Tyndall, Doughton & Moore by Richard Tyndall, Winston-Salem, for defendants-appellees. COPELAND, Justice. This case was consolidated for oral argument with the case of Deese v. Lawn and Tree Expert Co., ___ N.C. ___, 293 S.E.2d 140, No. 16PA82 on our docket. Both cases have similar factual settings and raise identical legal issues about the correct interpretation and application of G.S. 97-38. We have this day filed an opinion in the *149 Deese case which fully addresses and decides this statutory question in our workers' compensation law. Our reasoning and holding in Deese, ___ N.C. ___, 293 S.E.2d 140 (1982), necessarily governs the outcome in the instant case, and we consequently affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals without further ado.[1] AFFIRMED. MITCHELL, Justice, dissenting. I dissent and vote to reverse the Court of Appeals for the reasons set forth in my dissent in the case of Deese v. Lawn and Tree Expert Co., ___ N.C.___, 293 S.E.2d 140, filed this date and bearing our Docket No. 16PA82. EXUM and CARLTON, JJ., join in this dissenting opinion. [1] We have thoroughly reviewed and considered the various authorities cited by the parties in their briefs in our more expansive and dispositive discussion in the companion Deese case, supra.