Court Opinion

ID: 9588047
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:29:13.898466+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:47:57.392864
License: Public Domain

Judge Wells
concurring.
I concur in the majority opinion because I believe the result reached therein is mandated by prior decisional law. In doing so, however, I wish to emphasize the fundamental inconsistency, recognized by the majority, between the provisions of G.S. 97-24, relating to injury by accident, and G.S. 97-58, relating to injury from industrial disease. This fundamental inconsistency, and the harsh results which may flow from the provision of section 24, was recognized by our Supreme Court at least as early as 1947 in Whitted v. Palmer-Bee Company, relied on by the majority, a classic case of harsh result. Yet the problem abides for victims of insidious injuries, with results that cry out for more sensible and equitable response.