{
  "id": 4749506,
  "name": "ETHEL K. CLARK, Employee v. AMERICAN AND EFIRD MILLS, Employer, and AETNA LIFE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Carrier",
  "name_abbreviation": "Clark v. American & Efird Mills",
  "decision_date": "1985-01-08",
  "docket_number": "No. 167A84",
  "first_page": "616",
  "last_page": "616",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "312 N.C. 616"
    }
  ],
  "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": "301 S.E. 2d 359",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "308 N.C. 85",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4707972
      ],
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/308/0085-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "311 S.E. 2d 624",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "66 N.C. App. 624",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8525760
      ],
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/66/0624-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "301 S.E. 2d 359",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "308 N.C. 85",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4707972
      ],
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/308/0085-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 152,
    "char_count": 1627,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.817,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.138363859351185e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4721296492575436
    },
    "sha256": "845b664d0de830b74d95f5bf75d33e8f532394b1c4cb1a090dda85cb4b3a5172",
    "simhash": "1:287d2f88fecb4d0b",
    "word_count": 251
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:10:57.145273+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Justice VAUGHN did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "ETHEL K. CLARK, Employee v. AMERICAN AND EFIRD MILLS, Employer, and AETNA LIFE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Carrier"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER CURIAM.\nThe decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. The Industrial Commission is to determine on remand whether claimant has an occupational disease and whether claimant is disabled as a result thereof in light of the factors enumerated in this Court\u2019s opinion in Rutledge v. Tultex Corporation, 308 N.C. 85, 301 S.E. 2d 359 (1983).\nAffirmed.\nJustice VAUGHN did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER CURIAM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Charles R. Hassell, Jr. for plaintiff-appellee.",
      "Hedrick, Eatman, Gardner, Feerick & Kincheloe, by Hatcher Kincheloe and John F. Morris for defendant-appellants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ETHEL K. CLARK, Employee v. AMERICAN AND EFIRD MILLS, Employer, and AETNA LIFE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Carrier\nNo. 167A84\n(Filed 8 January 1985)\nAPPEAL by defendants pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-30(2) from the Court of Appeals\u2019 decision, 66 N.C. App. 624, 311 S.E. 2d 624 (1984), reversing the Industrial Commission\u2019s denial of workers\u2019 compensation benefits and remanding to the Commission for further findings of fact. In an opinion written by Judge Eagles, Judge Phillips concurring and Judge Webb dissenting, the Court held that the Commission failed to adequately address the factors outlined in Rutledge v. Tultex Corporation, 308 N.C. 85, 301 S.E. 2d 359 (1983) and ordered the Commission to make further findings as to (1) whether plaintiffs exposure to cotton dust \u201csignificantly contributed\u201d to the development of claimant\u2019s disease; (2) the extent of other non-work-related but contributory exposures and components of the disease; and (3) the manner in which the disease developed with reference to claimant\u2019s work history.\nCharles R. Hassell, Jr. for plaintiff-appellee.\nHedrick, Eatman, Gardner, Feerick & Kincheloe, by Hatcher Kincheloe and John F. Morris for defendant-appellants."
  },
  "file_name": "0616-01",
  "first_page_order": 646,
  "last_page_order": 646
}