From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Taylor v. Bridgestone

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Nov 1, 2003
598 S.E.2d 379 (N.C. 2003)

Opinion

No. 280A03

Filed 7 November 2003

Workers' Compensation — future medical treatment — initial burden of proof

The decision of the Court of Appeals in a workers' compensation case is reversed for the reason stated in the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals that there was competent evidence in the record to support the Industrial Commission's finding that plaintiff failed to meet his initial burden of proving that there was a substantial risk of future medical treatments.

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 157 N.C. App. 453, 579 S.E.2d 413 (2003), vacating an opinion and award of the North Carolina Industrial Commission filed 18 January 2002 and remanding for rehearing and findings of fact. Heard in the Supreme Court 14 October 2003.

Edwards Ricci, P.A., by Brian M. Ricci, for plaintiff-appellee. Cranfill, Sumner Hartzog, L.L.P., by David A. Rhoades and Jaye E. Bingham, for defendant-appellants.


The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion.

REVERSED.


Summaries of

Taylor v. Bridgestone

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Nov 1, 2003
598 S.E.2d 379 (N.C. 2003)
Case details for

Taylor v. Bridgestone

Case Details

Full title:PHIL S. TAYLOR, Employee v. BRIDGESTONE/FIRESTONE Employer, GALLAGHER…

Court:Supreme Court of North Carolina

Date published: Nov 1, 2003

Citations

598 S.E.2d 379 (N.C. 2003)
598 S.E.2d 379

Citing Cases

Spruill v. N.C. Dept. of Agriculture

Thus, defendant is liable for plaintiff's future medical care. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-25.1; Taylor v.…

Spain v. Spain

“This presumption, sometimes called the Parsons presumption, helps to ensure that an employee is not required…