# Grant v. Burlington Industries, Inc.

> Court of Appeals of North Carolina · October 15, 1985 · 77 N.C. App. 241

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9848859

## Case

- **Full name:** Lila S. Grant v. Burlington Industries, Inc. and Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of North Carolina
- **Decided:** October 15, 1985
- **Citations:** 77 N.C. App. 241; 335 S.E.2d 327; 1985 N.C. App. LEXIS 4076
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Webb
- **Judges:** Webb, Martin
- **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/9848859

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that expert in family medicine with experience in the field of pulmonary diseases was qualified to render the opinion that patient’s moderate to severe restrictive and obstructive disease was caused by her work as a “smash repairer” in the weave room where she worked f…

## Opinion text

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 *253 bound 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 .

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9848859. Public record. Not legal advice.