{
  "id": 5307010,
  "name": "LINDA M. HOGAN, Administratrix of the Estate of JAMES C. HOGAN, Deceased, Employee, Plaintiff v. CONE MILLS CORPORATION, Employer, and LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Carrier, Defendants",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hogan v. Cone Mills Corp.",
  "decision_date": "1990-04-05",
  "docket_number": "No. 344A89",
  "first_page": "476",
  "last_page": "477",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "326 N.C. 476"
    }
  ],
  "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": "381 S.E.2d 151",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1989,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "94 N.C. App. 640",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8527692
      ],
      "year": 1989,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/94/0640-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "305 S.E.2d 213",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "63 N.C. App. 439",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8525350
      ],
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/63/0439-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "337 S.E.2d 477",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1985,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "486"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "315 N.C. 127",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4716956
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1985,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "142"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/315/0127-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 276,
    "char_count": 3990,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.726,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.893335976240969e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5352647972912706
    },
    "sha256": "1c377bdaedc34a6ba8d696dfa020a52227d7d12e8e26fe26f02c907901a3d488",
    "simhash": "1:2c7af4a261a3824e",
    "word_count": 640
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:38:26.587833+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "LINDA M. HOGAN, Administratrix of the Estate of JAMES C. HOGAN, Deceased, Employee, Plaintiff v. CONE MILLS CORPORATION, Employer, and LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Carrier, Defendants"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER CURIAM.\nThis is a workers\u2019 compensation claim originally filed in 1976. The worker, now deceased, sought benefits, now pursued by his estate, for total disability allegedly caused by his long exposure to cotton dust while in the employ of Cone Mills. The Industrial Commission (Commission) originally dismissed the claim on procedural grounds but later invited Hogan to refile his claim, believing that certain new legislation entitled him to pursue the claim. See Hogan v. Cone Mills Corp., 315 N.C. 127, 337 S.E.2d 477 (1985), hereinafter Hogan I. Pursuant to this \u201cinvitation\u201d Hogan filed his claim again in 1980, and the Commission concluded that Hogan was totally disabled due to byssinosis and awarded him compensation. The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding among other things that the Commission\u2019s dismissal of Hogan\u2019s original claim barred Hogan\u2019s second claim under the doctrine of res judicata. Hogan v. Cone Mills Corp., 63 N.C. App. 439, 305 S.E.2d 213 (1983). This Court in Hogan I reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded the matter to the Commission for further consideration.\nIn Hogan I we agreed with the Court of Appeals that the Commission\u2019s dismissal of Hogan\u2019s original claim so long as it remained in effect barred consideration of his second claim. Believing, however, that there were compelling circumstances which might lead the Commission in the exercise of its discretionary, inherent judicial power to set aside its dismissal of Hogan\u2019s original claim, we reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded the matter to the Commission for its determination of whether its earlier dismissal should be set aside. We said:\nThe decision whether to set aside the judgment [of dismissal] rests, in the first instance, within the judgment of the Commission. If the Commission refuses to set aside the former judgment, Hogan\u2019s claim will be barred by res judicata. If . . . the Commission does set aside the former judgment, no final judgment on the merits will exist to bar [Hogan\u2019s second claim].\nHogan I, 315 N.C. at 142, 337 S.E.2d at 486.\nOn remand the Commission elected not to set aside its dismissal of Hogan\u2019s first claim, and the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, with one judge dissenting.\nOn this appeal we have carefully considered the arguments, new briefs, the Court of Appeals\u2019 majority and dissenting opinions, the record and our decision and opinion in Hogan I. We are simply unable to say under the circumstances of this case, as convoluted as they are, that the Commission\u2019s refusal to set aside the dismissal was an abuse of its discretion. While there is much in the case which would have justified its setting aside of the dismissal, we cannot say the Commission\u2019s decision to the contrary is wholly unsupported by reason. On this issue we cannot substitute our judgment for the Commission\u2019s.\nThe Court of Appeals decision, therefore, reversing the Commission is\nReversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER CURIAM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Turner, Enochs, Sparrow, Boone & Falk, P.A., by Peter F. Chastain, for plaintiff appellee.",
      "Smith, Helms, Mulliss & Moore, by J. Donald Cowan, Jr. and W. Alexander Audilet, for defendant appellants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "LINDA M. HOGAN, Administratrix of the Estate of JAMES C. HOGAN, Deceased, Employee, Plaintiff v. CONE MILLS CORPORATION, Employer, and LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Carrier, Defendants\nNo. 344A89\n(Filed 5 April 1990)\nMaster and Servant \u00a7 94.3 (NCI3d)\u2014 workers\u2019 compensation \u2014 refusal to set aside dismissal of original claim \u2014no abuse of discretion\nThe Industrial Commission did not abuse its discretion in refusing to set aside its earlier dismissal of plaintiff\u2019s original claim for workers\u2019 compensation.\nAm Jur 2d, Workmen\u2019s Compensation \u00a7\u00a7 570, 598, 599.\nAppeal by defendants pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-30\u00cd2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 94 N.C. App. 640, 381 S.E.2d 151 (1989), which reversed the Opinion and Award of the North Carolina Industrial Commission filed 8 March 1988. Heard in the Supreme Court 13 February 1990.\nTurner, Enochs, Sparrow, Boone & Falk, P.A., by Peter F. Chastain, for plaintiff appellee.\nSmith, Helms, Mulliss & Moore, by J. Donald Cowan, Jr. and W. Alexander Audilet, for defendant appellants."
  },
  "file_name": "0476-01",
  "first_page_order": 512,
  "last_page_order": 513
}