{
  "id": 3800261,
  "name": "ELIZABETH EDMONDS, Employee v. FRESENIUS MEDICAL CARE, Employer, SELF-INSURED (CNA Claim Plus, Servicing Agent)",
  "name_abbreviation": "Edmonds v. Fresenius Medical Care",
  "decision_date": "2005-03-04",
  "docket_number": "No. 487A04",
  "first_page": "313",
  "last_page": "313",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "359 N.C. 313"
    }
  ],
  "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": "600 S.E.2d 501",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2004,
      "opinion_index": -1
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 119,
    "char_count": 1189,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.698,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.542203164423602e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8135439556514685
    },
    "sha256": "0d4c38167584a2709338f21c488b8fd11d2ba7351558927d1604b15e46f4f106",
    "simhash": "1:103b641b12a3e2b8",
    "word_count": 183
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:11:02.499353+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "ELIZABETH EDMONDS, Employee v. FRESENIUS MEDICAL CARE, Employer, SELF-INSURED (CNA Claim Plus, Servicing Agent)"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER CURIAM.\nFor the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion, the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed.\nREVERSED.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER CURIAM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Randy D. Duncan for plaintiff-appellee.",
      "Hedrick Eatman Gardner & Kincheloe, LLP, by Mel J. Garofalo and Shannon P. Herndon, for defendant-appellant Fresenius Medical Care."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ELIZABETH EDMONDS, Employee v. FRESENIUS MEDICAL CARE, Employer, SELF-INSURED (CNA Claim Plus, Servicing Agent)\nNo. 487A04\n(Filed 4 March 2005)\nWorkers\u2019 Compensation\u2014 renal problems \u2014 exacerbation by drugs for back injury \u2014 failure of proof\nThe decision of the Court of Appeals in this case upholding an award of compensation to plaintiff for reduced renal function was reversed for the reason stated in the dissenting opinion that plaintiff failed to prove that her pre-existing kidney problems were exacerbated by nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs taken as part of her treatment for a compensable back injury.\nAppeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals,\u2014 N.C. App. \u2014, 600 S.E.2d 501 (2004), affirming an opinion and award entered by the North Carolina Industrial Commission on 5 May 2003. Heard in the Supreme Court 7 February 2005.\nRandy D. Duncan for plaintiff-appellee.\nHedrick Eatman Gardner & Kincheloe, LLP, by Mel J. Garofalo and Shannon P. Herndon, for defendant-appellant Fresenius Medical Care."
  },
  "file_name": "0313-01",
  "first_page_order": 351,
  "last_page_order": 351
}