Case Name: ETHEL K. CLARK, Employee v. AMERICAN AND EFIRD MILLS, Employer, and AETNA LIFE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Carrier
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1985-01-08
Citations: 312 N.C. 616
Docket Number: No. 167A84
Parties: ETHEL K. CLARK, Employee v. AMERICAN AND EFIRD MILLS, Employer, and AETNA LIFE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Carrier
Judges: Justice VAUGHN did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 312
Pages: 616–616

Head Matter:
ETHEL K. CLARK, Employee v. AMERICAN AND EFIRD MILLS, Employer, and AETNA LIFE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Carrier
No. 167A84
(Filed 8 January 1985)
APPEAL by defendants pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the Court of Appeals’ decision, 66 N.C. App. 624, 311 S.E. 2d 624 (1984), reversing the Industrial Commission’s denial of workers’ compensation benefits and remanding to the Commission for further findings of fact. In an opinion written by Judge Eagles, Judge Phillips concurring and Judge Webb dissenting, the Court held that the Commission failed to adequately address the factors outlined in Rutledge v. Tultex Corporation, 308 N.C. 85, 301 S.E. 2d 359 (1983) and ordered the Commission to make further findings as to (1) whether plaintiffs exposure to cotton dust “significantly contributed” to the development of claimant’s disease; (2) the extent of other non-work-related but contributory exposures and components of the disease; and (3) the manner in which the disease developed with reference to claimant’s work history.
Charles R. Hassell, Jr. for plaintiff-appellee.
Hedrick, Eatman, Gardner, Feerick & Kincheloe, by Hatcher Kincheloe and John F. Morris for defendant-appellants.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. The Industrial Commission is to determine on remand whether claimant has an occupational disease and whether claimant is disabled as a result thereof in light of the factors enumerated in this Court's opinion in Rutledge v. Tultex Corporation, 308 N.C. 85, 301 S.E. 2d 359 (1983).
Affirmed.
Justice VAUGHN did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.