{
  "id": 135668,
  "name": "BARBARA D. MEADOWS v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION",
  "name_abbreviation": "Meadows v. North Carolina Department of Transportation",
  "decision_date": "2001-04-06",
  "docket_number": "No. 516A00",
  "first_page": "350",
  "last_page": "351",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "353 N.C. 350"
    }
  ],
  "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": "535 S.E.2d 895",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2000,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "140 N.C. App. 183",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        12123593
      ],
      "year": 2000,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/140/0183-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "509 S.E.2d 411",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1998,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "349 N.C. 676",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        571666
      ],
      "year": 1998,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/349/0676-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 182,
    "char_count": 2690,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.741,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.00476437043240745
    },
    "sha256": "b7c759bc08b326289da5b12b559a9572019f7cf34f81f8deac5a5b31d44fc61a",
    "simhash": "1:c9da6ecb9663d828",
    "word_count": 395
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:31:00.841375+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "BARBARA D. MEADOWS v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER CURIAM.\nPlaintiff in this action sought workers\u2019 compensation benefits claiming multiple foot problems as an occupational disease. A deputy commissioner for the Industrial Commission concluded that plaintiff\u2019s disease was nonoccupational and, therefore, denied her workers\u2019 compensation claim. On appeal, the full Commission affirmed the opinion and award of the deputy commissioner with minor modifications. The Commission found that the shoes issued as part of plaintiff\u2019s uniform aggravated plaintiff\u2019s preexisting non-work-related foot condition and that the shoes were not required as a condition of employment, as plaintiff could have requested permission to wear other shoes. The Commission then concluded that, as the shoes were not a requirement for employment, the aggravation of plaintiffs preexisting foot condition was not due to causes and conditions that are characteristic of and peculiar to the employment and that plaintiff has therefore not suffered an occupational disease arising out of and in the course of the employment.\nOur review of the record discloses competent evidence in the record supporting the Industrial Commission\u2019s findings of fact. Those findings of fact, in turn, support the Industrial Commission\u2019s conclusions of law. Accordingly, we reverse the opinion of the Court of Appeals. See Adams v. AVX Corp., 349 N.C. 676, 509 S.E.2d 411 (1998).\nREVERSED.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER CURIAM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Kellum Law Firm, by J. Kevin Jones, for plaintiff-appellee.",
      "Roy A. Cooper, Attorney General, by Sharon Patrick-Wilson and William H. Borden, Assistant Attorneys General, for defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "BARBARA D. MEADOWS v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nNo. 516A00\n(Filed 6 April 2001)\n. Workers\u2019 Compensation\u2014 aggravation of preexisting foot condition \u2014 issued shoes \u2014 not condition of employment \u2014 not occupational disease\nThe evidence supported findings by the Industrial Commission that, although shoes issued to plaintiff driver\u2019s license examiner as part of her uniform aggravated plaintiff\u2019s preexisting foot condition, the shoes were not required as a condition of employment because plaintiff could have requested permission to wear other shoes, and the findings supported the Commission\u2019s conclusion that the aggravation of plaintiff\u2019s preexisting foot condition did not constitute ah occupational disease arising out of and in the course of her employment.\nAppeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 140 N.C. App. 183, 535 S.E.2d 895 (2000), reversing an opinion and award entered 4 March 1999 by the North Carolina Industrial Commission and remanding for'further proceedings. Heard in the Supreme Court 15 March 2001.\nKellum Law Firm, by J. Kevin Jones, for plaintiff-appellee.\nRoy A. Cooper, Attorney General, by Sharon Patrick-Wilson and William H. Borden, Assistant Attorneys General, for defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0350-01",
  "first_page_order": 398,
  "last_page_order": 399
}