# Jenkins v. Easco Aluminum Corp.

> Court of Appeals of North Carolina · February 6, 2001 · 142 N.C. App. 71

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9609944

## Case

- **Full name:** RACHEL N. JENKINS, Employee, Plaintiff-Appellant v. EASCO ALUMINUM CORP., Employer; HARTFORD SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES, Carrier, Defendant-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of North Carolina
- **Decided:** February 6, 2001
- **Citations:** 142 N.C. App. 71; 541 S.E.2d 510; 2001 N.C. App. LEXIS 38
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Greene
- **Judges:** Horton, Tyson, Greene
- **Cited by:** 19 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9609944

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding the Industrial Commission failed to indicate consideration of testimony regarding causation where there was "no mention at all of Dr. Downes' testimony in the opinion and award, nor any finding from which we can reasonably infer that the Commission gave proper consider…

## Opinion text

Judge Greene
dissenting in part.
As I believe there is no evidence in this record that other employers would hire plaintiff in a job with a wage comparable to her pre-injury wages, the opinion and award of the Commission must be reversed and remanded for an award of appropriate compensation. 1 Saums v. Raleigh Community Hospital, 346 N.C. 760, 765 , 487 S.E.2d 746, 750 (1997) (there must be evidence “employers, other than defendant, would hire plaintiff to do a similar job at a comparable wage”). I would not, therefore, find it necessary to remand this case to the Commission for consideration of Dr. Downes’ testimony, as required by the majority. I, therefore, respectfully dissent on this issue. I, however, agree with the majority with respect to the section 97-12 and the permanent partial disability (for loss of fingers) issues.
. Indeed, the Commission did not find as fact plaintiff was capable of obtaining a position as a quality inspector in the competitive job market, taking into account plaintiff’s physical limitations.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9609944. Public record. Not legal advice.