Webb v. Pauline Knitting Industries
| Decision Date | 03 December 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 8510IC579,8510IC579 |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Myrtle S. WEBB, Employee, Plaintiff, v. PAULINE KNITTING INDUSTRIES (Formerly Known As Macanal Spinning Mills), Employer, The Travelers Insurance Company, Carrier, and/or Aetna Casualty & Surety Insurance Company, Carrier, and/or Federal Insurance Company, Carrier, Defendants. |
Lore & McClearen by R. James Lore, Raleigh, for plaintiff.
Boyle, Alexander, Hord & Smith by B. Irvin Boyle, Charlotte, for defendants-appellees Pauline Knitting Industries and The Travelers Ins. Co.
Underwood, Kinsey & Warren, P.A. by John H. Northey III, Charlotte, for defendant-appellee The Aetna Casualty and Surety Ins. Co.
Hedrick, Eatman, Gardner & Kincheloe by Edward L. Eatman, Jr., Charlotte, for defendant-appellee Federal Ins. Co.
Plaintiff contends that the Commission's award was entered under misapprehensions of law and that this case should be remanded for further consideration as to whether plaintiff is entitled to compensation for permanent and total disability under N.C.Gen.Stat. § 97-29 (Cum.Supp.1983). We agree and reverse and remand.
In summary, the Commission found that plaintiff has chronic obstructive pulmonary disease caused in part by her exposure to respirable cotton dust during her employment; that plaintiff has a respiratory impairment of a moderate nature; that as a result of her chronic obstructive lung disease, plaintiff has sustained permanent damage to each of her lungs; that this impairment is not sufficient to render plaintiff incapable of performing types of employment which do not require very strenuous activity or exposure to cotton dust (emphasis supplied); and that plaintiff had not proven that her exposure to respirable cotton dust had resulted in any incapacity to earn wages in her employment with defendant Pauline Knitting Industries or any other employment. The Commission's findings do not address the evidence that plaintiff's education, age and experience suggest that she is probably not capable of earning wages in any employment which does not require substantial physical exertion. These findings also fly directly in the face of the medical evidence which consistently showed plaintiff to be incapable of performing physically exertive labor.
Under Little v. Food Service, 295 N.C. 527, 246 S.E.2d 743 (1978) and its progeny, this case must be remanded for appropriate findings and conclusions of plaintiff's capacity to earn wages in employment for which she may be qualified in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reves v. Kindell's Mercantile Co., Inc.
...221, 67 A.L.R. 780, 782 (1930); Brooks v. Hobbs Municipal Schools, 101 N.M. 707, 688 P.2d 25, 30 (1984); Webb v. Pauline Knitting Industries, 78 N.C.App. 184, 336 S.E.2d 645, 647 (1985). Citing § 213.010(2), (5), (8), (13), RSMo 1986, appellants contend that as discrimination by age is ille......
-
Thomas v. Hanes Printables
...closing. The Court stated that: Because disability measures an employee's present ability to earn wages, Webb v. Pauline Knitting Industries, 78 N.C.App. 184, 336 S.E.2d 645 (1985), and is unrelated to a decision to withdraw from the labor force by retirement, the Commission may not deny di......
-
Heffner v. Cone Mills Corp., 8610IC375
... ... disability measures an employee's present ability to earn wages, Webb v. Pauline Knitting Industries, 78 N.C.App. 184, 336 S.E.2d 645 (1985), ... ...
-
Stroud v. Caswell Center
...a misapprehension of the law. Because disability measures an employee's present ability to earn wages, Webb v. Pauline Knitting Industries, 78 N.C.App. 184, 336 S.E.2d 645 (1985), and is unrelated to a decision to withdraw from the labor force by retirement, the Commission may not deny disa......