Court Opinion

ID: 9609815
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 03:31:52.370207+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:52.675370
License: Public Domain

Judge Clark
dissenting:
I cannot accept this proposition that where , an employee suffers a job related injury the employer is liable for all disability, including a prior noncompensable injury outside and having no causal connection with his present employment.
The purpose of the Workmen’s Compensation Act , is to provide compensation for industrial injuries. It was not intended to provide compensation for injuries sustained outside *260of and unrelated to employment. And construing pari materia the apportionment provisions in G.S. 97-33 and G.S. 97-35, it is my opinion that they are not, and were not intended to be, in derogation of the common law rules of proximate cause and damages. Nor do the Mabe and Schrum cases, relied on by plaintiff and cited by the majority, support the proposition.
The majority nonapportionment rule would result in the discharge of handicapped workers and impair the employment opportunities of the handicapped.
I agree with the ruling of the Industrial Commission that plaintiff recover only for the disability incurred by his employment-related injury.