Case Name: DORIS ANN BURROW, Employee-Plaintiff v. HANES HOSIERY, INC., Employer, AETNA LIFE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Carrier-Defendants
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1984-06-05
Citations: 311 N.C. 297
Docket Number: No. 121A84
Parties: DORIS ANN BURROW, Employee-Plaintiff v. HANES HOSIERY, INC., Employer, AETNA LIFE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Carrier-Defendants
Judges: Justice Mitchell did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 311
Pages: 297–297

Head Matter:
DORIS ANN BURROW, Employee-Plaintiff v. HANES HOSIERY, INC., Employer, AETNA LIFE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Carrier-Defendants
No. 121A84
(Filed 5 June 1984)
PLAINTIFF appeals as a matter of right pursuant to G.S. 7A-30(2) from the decision of the Court of Appeals, 66 N.C. App. 418, 311 S.E. 2d 30 (1984), one judge dissenting, which reversed the Opinion and Award of the Industrial Commission.
Harper, Wood and Brown, by William Z. Wood, Jr., for plaintiff-appellant.
Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice, by Keith W. Vaughan, for defendant-appellees.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The opinion of the Court of Appeals contains a thorough statement of the relevant facts of this case. The Court of Appeals concluded that neither the evidence which had been presented by the plaintiff at two prior hearings nor the findings of fact contained in the Opinion and Award of the Full Commission supported a finding of a "change of condition" occurring after the plaintiffs final award of permanent partial disability compensation. Therefore, the Court of Appeals reversed the Full Commission's award of temporary total disability compensation.
After carefully reviewing the record and briefs filed in this case, and hearing the oral arguments of counsel for both parties, we have concluded that the analysis, the reasoning, and the result reached by the majority of the panel of the Court of Appeals is correct in all respects. Therefore, we affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals.
Affirmed.
Justice Mitchell did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.