{
  "id": 220142,
  "name": "BEATRICE WOODY, Employee v. THOMASVILLE UPHOLSTERY INCORPORATED, Employer, SELF-INSURED (Helsman-Management Services, Inc., Servicing Agent)",
  "name_abbreviation": "Woody v. Thomasville Upholstery Inc.",
  "decision_date": "2002-05-10",
  "docket_number": "No. 596A01",
  "first_page": "483",
  "last_page": "484",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "355 N.C. 483"
    }
  ],
  "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": "552 S.E.2d 202",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2001,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "146 N.C. App. 187",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11355398
      ],
      "year": 2001,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/146/0187-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 122,
    "char_count": 1319,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.697,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.8684892945540712e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7258637472686632
    },
    "sha256": "18fc570624dc30680baec45ce7c61f4c4cbf878015e3290b3303f394c51b06a7",
    "simhash": "1:241bf69276b3d06e",
    "word_count": 197
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:24:10.729326+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "BEATRICE WOODY, Employee v. THOMASVILLE UPHOLSTERY INCORPORATED, Employer, SELF-INSURED (Helsman-Management Services, Inc., Servicing Agent)"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER CURIAM.\nFor the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals.\nREVERSED.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER CURIAM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mary F. Pyron for plaintiff-appellee.",
      "Morris York Williams Surles & Barringer, LLP, by Thomas E. Williams and Stephen Kushner; and Orbock Bowden Ruark & Dillard, by Maureen S. Orbock and Devin F. Thomas, for defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "BEATRICE WOODY, Employee v. THOMASVILLE UPHOLSTERY INCORPORATED, Employer, SELF-INSURED (Helsman-Management Services, Inc., Servicing Agent)\nNo. 596A01\n(Filed 10 May 2002)\nWorkers\u2019 Compensation\u2014 depression and fibromyalgia \u2014 not occupational diseases\nThe decision of the Court of Appeals in this case is reversed for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals that the evidence and the Industrial Commission\u2019s findings do not support the Commission\u2019s conclusions that plaintiff\u2019s employment exposed her to a greater risk of contracting depression and fibromyalgia than the public generally and that her depression and fibromyalgia are compensable occupational diseases.\nAppeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 146 N.C. App. 187, 552 S.E.2d 202 (2001), affirming an opinion and award entered by the Industrial Commission on 13 January 2000. Heard in the Supreme Court 16 April 2002.\nMary F. Pyron for plaintiff-appellee.\nMorris York Williams Surles & Barringer, LLP, by Thomas E. Williams and Stephen Kushner; and Orbock Bowden Ruark & Dillard, by Maureen S. Orbock and Devin F. Thomas, for defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0483-01",
  "first_page_order": 531,
  "last_page_order": 532
}