{
  "id": 8358649,
  "name": "MARY ALENE STRICKLAND, Employee, Plaintiff v. BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC., Employer, and LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., Carrier, Defendants",
  "name_abbreviation": "Strickland v. Burlington Industries, Inc.",
  "decision_date": "1987-11-03",
  "docket_number": "No. 8610IC1273",
  "first_page": "507",
  "last_page": "508",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "87 N.C. App. 507"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "359 S.E. 2d 19",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "86 N.C. App. 598",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        12138121
      ],
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/86/0598-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "357 S.E. 2d 674",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "320 N.C. 38",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4728643
      ],
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/320/0038-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "302 S.E. 2d 645",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "62 N.C. App. 267",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8521722
      ],
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/62/0267-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 239,
    "char_count": 3393,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.788,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.087085966315723e-08,
      "percentile": 0.37930145734365206
    },
    "sha256": "0c4ee056eed244cf2d335cfe82376bd7e0e3fe1f4f0ddfb33105856366aaba13",
    "simhash": "1:266d834714ebf0d7",
    "word_count": 535
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:10:55.356094+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Phillips and Eagles concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "MARY ALENE STRICKLAND, Employee, Plaintiff v. BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC., Employer, and LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., Carrier, Defendants"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ORR, Judge.\nPlaintiff contends that since the Industrial Commission made a finding of permanent disability, it should have also made findings regarding her loss of wage earning capacity under N.C.G.S. \u00a7\u00a7 97-29 or 97-30 and then made an award. Often an award under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 97-29, and by implication N.C.G.S. \u00a7 97-30, better fulfills the policy of the Workers\u2019 Compensation Act than an award under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 97-31(24), because it is a more favorable remedy and is more directly related to compensating a worker\u2019s inability to work. West v. Bladenboro Cotton Mills, 62 N.C. App. 267, 302 S.E. 2d 645 (1983).\nIn the present case, after finding that plaintiff had suffered a permanent disability to her lungs, the Industrial Commission compensated her under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 97-31. In making this award the Industrial Commission failed to consider or make findings of fact as to whether plaintiffs disability affected her wage earning capacity under either N.C.G.S. \u00a7 97-29, total incapacity, or N.C.G.S. \u00a7 97-30, partial incapacity. This was in error.\nOur Supreme Court has now held in Gupton v. Builders Transport, 320 N.C. 38, 357 S.E. 2d 674 (1987), that where a disability affects wage earning capacity a worker may elect between the fixed compensation under the scheduled injury provisions of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 97-31 or in the alternative for actual wage loss compensation (total or partial) under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 97-29 or N.C.G.S. \u00a7 97-30.\nThe Industrial Commission\u2019s failure to make any findings on the question of plaintiffs loss of wage earning capacity prevented her from electing to recover under N.C.G.S. \u00a7\u00a7 97-29 or 97-30, if she was so entitled. Therefore, we remand to the Industrial Commission for additional findings on the issue of wage earning capacity.\nExcept as above modified, the prior decision rendered by this Court is hereby confirmed.\nAffirmed.\nJudges Phillips and Eagles concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ORR, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Lore & McClearen, by B. Edwin McClearen, attorney for plaintiff-appellant.",
      "Smith, Anderson, Blount, Dorsett, Mitchell & Jernigan, by C. Ernest Simons and Steven M. Sartorio, attorneys for defendant-appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "MARY ALENE STRICKLAND, Employee, Plaintiff v. BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC., Employer, and LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., Carrier, Defendants\nNo. 8610IC1273\n(Filed 3 November 1987)\nMaster and Servant \u00a7 69\u2014 workers\u2019 compensation \u2014 permanent disability to lungs \u2014no findings on wage earning capacity\nThe Industrial Commission erred in a workers\u2019 compensation proceeding in which plaintiff was found to have suffered a permanent disability to her lungs by failing to consider or make findings of fact as to whether plaintiffs disability affected her wage earning capacity under either N.C.G.S. \u00a7 97-29 or N.C.G.S. \u00a7 97-30.\nThis action was originally heard in the North Carolina Court of Appeals on 8 June 1987, Strickland v. Burlington Industries, Inc., 86 N.C. App. 598, 359 S.E. 2d 19 (1987), and on 21 September 1987 plaintiff petitioned for a rehearing. The petition for rehearing was allowed with review limited to that portion of the original opinion, filed on 18 August 1987 and certified on 7 September 1987, in which this Court held that the Industrial Commission need not consider and make findings of fact as to the effect of plaintiffs permanent disability on her wage earning capacity when determining its award. That portion of the original opinion is hereby superseded by this opinion.\nLore & McClearen, by B. Edwin McClearen, attorney for plaintiff-appellant.\nSmith, Anderson, Blount, Dorsett, Mitchell & Jernigan, by C. Ernest Simons and Steven M. Sartorio, attorneys for defendant-appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0507-01",
  "first_page_order": 535,
  "last_page_order": 536
}
