Court Opinion

ID: 9848859
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:28:46.831194+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:50.061943
License: Public Domain

Judge WEBB
dissenting.
I dissent to that portion of the opinion which holds that the plaintiff is entitled to compensation under G.S. 97-31(24). I believe the reasoning of Harrell v. Yarns, 56 N.C. App. 697, 289 S.E. 2d 846 (1982), disc. rev. granted, Harrell v. Harriett and Henderson Yarns, 309 N.C. 191, 305 S.E. 2d 733 (1983), is sound and we are *253bound by that case. Until the passage of G.S. 97-52 occupational diseases were not injuries by accident within the meaning of the Workers’ Compensation Act. G.S. 97-52 provides in part:
Disablement or death of an employee resulting from an occupational disease . . . shall be treated as the happening of an injury by accident within the meaning of the North Carolina Workers’ Compensation Act.
There was not a finding of a disablement in this case and the plaintiff had not suffered from an accident within the meaning of the Workers’ Compensation Act. She was not entitled to compensation under G.S. 97-31(24). Cook v. Bladenboro Cotton Mills, 61 N.C. App. 562, 300 S.E. 2d 852 (1983) and West v. Bladenboro Cotton Mills, 62 N.C. App. 267, 302 S.E. 2d 645 (1983) did not face this issue squarely as was done in Harrell.