Court Opinion

ID: 9562481
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:29:58.413423+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:22.477857
License: Public Domain

ARROWOOD, Judge
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in the holdings announced in Sections A, B, and D of the Court’s majority opinion. I respectfully dissent from Section C of the Court’s opinion affirming the Commission’s failure to apportion Claimant’s disability.
The Commission found and concluded that Claimant’s employment neither caused nor significantly contributed to his gout or *399arthritis. These findings and conclusions when coupled with Dr. DeFranzo’s testimony cited by the majority at pages 15 through 17 of the Opinion are, in my opinion, sufficient to require the Commission to make additional findings regarding what portion of Claimant’s disability is related to his employment.
I would, therefore, remand this case for further findings regarding what percentage of Claimant’s disability is attributable to his job with the City. I believe such additional findings are mandated by Weaver v. Swedish Imports Maintenance, Inc., 319 N.C. 243, 354 S.E.2d 477 (1987) and Pitman v. Feldspar Corp., 87 N.C. App. 208, 360 S.E.2d 696 (1987), disc. review denied, 321 N.C. 474, 364 S.E.29 924 (1988).