{
  "id": 4686358,
  "name": "DORIS ANN BURROW, Employee-Plaintiff v. HANES HOSIERY, INC., Employer, AETNA LIFE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Carrier-Defendants",
  "name_abbreviation": "Burrow v. Hanes Hosiery, Inc.",
  "decision_date": "1984-06-05",
  "docket_number": "No. 121A84",
  "first_page": "297",
  "last_page": "297",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "311 N.C. 297"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "311 S.E. 2d 30",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "66 N.C. App. 418",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8525206
      ],
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/66/0418-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 145,
    "char_count": 1561,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.82,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.8172472706271035e-08,
      "percentile": 0.30292731352291197
    },
    "sha256": "8f3a59ab8befb6e8d74215463fbbed99a2663a1d6150084da48d0270582c4d06",
    "simhash": "1:2cffffcb6b05c67a",
    "word_count": 247
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:17:48.934020+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Justice Mitchell did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "DORIS ANN BURROW, Employee-Plaintiff v. HANES HOSIERY, INC., Employer, AETNA LIFE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Carrier-Defendants"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER CURIAM.\nThe opinion of the Court of Appeals contains a thorough statement of the relevant facts of this case. The Court of Appeals concluded that neither the evidence which had been presented by the plaintiff at two prior hearings nor the findings of fact contained in the Opinion and Award of the Full Commission supported a finding of a \u201cchange of condition\u201d occurring after the plaintiffs final award of permanent partial disability compensation. Therefore, the Court of Appeals reversed the Full Commission\u2019s award of temporary total disability compensation.\nAfter carefully reviewing the record and briefs filed in this case, and hearing the oral arguments of counsel for both parties, we have concluded that the analysis, the reasoning, and the result reached by the majority of the panel of the Court of Appeals is correct in all respects. Therefore, we affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals.\nAffirmed.\nJustice Mitchell did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER CURIAM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Harper, Wood and Brown, by William Z. Wood, Jr., for plaintiff-appellant.",
      "Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice, by Keith W. Vaughan, for defendant-appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "DORIS ANN BURROW, Employee-Plaintiff v. HANES HOSIERY, INC., Employer, AETNA LIFE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Carrier-Defendants\nNo. 121A84\n(Filed 5 June 1984)\nPLAINTIFF appeals as a matter of right pursuant to G.S. 7A-30(2) from the decision of the Court of Appeals, 66 N.C. App. 418, 311 S.E. 2d 30 (1984), one judge dissenting, which reversed the Opinion and Award of the Industrial Commission.\nHarper, Wood and Brown, by William Z. Wood, Jr., for plaintiff-appellant.\nWomble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice, by Keith W. Vaughan, for defendant-appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0297-01",
  "first_page_order": 341,
  "last_page_order": 341
}