O'Neal v. Inline Fluid Power, Inc.

Full title: Richard O'Neal, Employee v. Inline Fluid Power, Inc. & Automotive Parts…

Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Date published: Apr 13, 2016

794 S.E.2d 799 (N.C. 2016)

368 N.C. 822

Opinion

No. 261PA15

04-13-2016

Richard O'Neal, Employee v. Inline Fluid Power, Inc. & Automotive Parts Co., Inc., Employer and Auto Owners Insurance Company, Carrier

Leonard T. Jernigan, Jr., Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Kristina Brown Thompson, Attorney at Law, M. Hayes Jernigan, Attorney at Law, for O'Neal, Richard. Viral V. Mehta, Attorney at Law, Jordan A. Benton, Attorney at Law, Carl M. Short, III, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Inline Fluid Power, Inc. & Automotive Parts Co., Inc., et al.

Leonard T. Jernigan, Jr., Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Kristina Brown Thompson, Attorney at Law, M. Hayes Jernigan, Attorney at Law, for O'Neal, Richard.

Viral V. Mehta, Attorney at Law, Jordan A. Benton, Attorney at Law, Carl M. Short, III, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Inline Fluid Power, Inc. & Automotive Parts Co., Inc., et al.

ORDER

Upon consideration of the Plaintiff's Petition for Discretionary Review, the Plaintiff's Petition for Discretionary Review is allowed as to issue number two only. The petition is denied as to any remaining issues. Further, Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Petition for Discretionary Review is allowed; Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Response to Motion to Amend Petition for Discretionary Review is denied.

By order of this Court in Conference, this 13^thday of April, 2016.