#### BARRY E. ALFORD, W. SPUT ANDERSON, WILLIAM C. ANDERSON, C. TRACY BARNHILL, JR., DOUGLAS M. BLAKE, JAMES M. BOOTH, BOBBY J. BOYD, JR., J. ALAN BOYKIN, STEVE H. BOSWELL, RUBEN C. BUTLER, STEPHEN CANNON, R. BLAINE CARGILE, JR., ERNEST E. CARRAWAY, ERIC COOPER, TONY COUNCIL, KENNETH R. CREDLE, KELLY L. DARDEN, JR., WILLIAM R. DUPREE III, ADAM L. GARDNER, JR., DONALD M. GAY, CHRIS G. GEHRING, GORDON L. HAISLIP, KENDALL HARDEE, KEITH D. HARRIS, WILLIAM HUNTER, JR., JOHN JAMES, CHRIS JEFFERSON, MELVIN L. JENKINS, BILLY B. KING, WILLIAM D. KITTRELL, MITCHELL W. MANNING, JR., EDWARD MEYER, DAVID MIZELLE, MARK OSNOE, JONATHAN SCOTT PEELE, JAMES H. RASPBERRY, HARRY L. ROUSE, LEVON SHAW, MARGARET G. SHAW, JOHNNY R. SMITH, WILLIAM H.C. SMITH, PHILIP H. STALLS, JACKIE D. SUMMERLIN, JEANETTE T. TAFT, LEONARD A. THORN, JAMES W. TURNAGE, WAYNE P. TYNDALL, WILLIAM P. WARD, WILLIAM WEST, EDDIE WILLIAMS, and EVANGELINE S. WILSON v. CATALYTICA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., and EASTERN OMNI CONSTRUCTORS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

No. 319A02

(Filed 28 February 2003)

Employer and Employee— Woodson claim — statute of limitations

A decision of the Court of Appeals that plaintiffs Woodson claim was barred by the one-year statute of limitations for intentional torts set forth in N.C.G.S. § 1-54(3) is reversed for the reason stated in the dissenting opinion that such a claim is not governed by the statute of limitations in N.C.G.S. § 1-54(3) but is governed by the catch-all three-year statute of limitations in N.C.G.S. § 1-52(5).

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 150 N.C. App. 489, 564 S.E.2d 267 (2002), affirming an order entered 22 February 2001 by Judge Howard E. Manning, Jr., in Superior Court, Wake County. Heard in the Supreme Court 4 December 2002.

Laura S. Jenkins, PC, by Laura S. Jenkins, for plaintiff-appellants.

Smith, Anderson, Blount, Dorsett, Mitchell & Jemigan, L.L.P., by Mark A. Ash and J. Mitchell Armbruster, for for defendantappellee Catalytica Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

*655PER CURIAM.

For the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion, the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for further remand to the Superior Court, Wake County, for proceedings not inconsistent with the dissenting opinion.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Justice BRADY did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.