North Carolina § 97-52 - Occupational disease made compensable; "accident" defined.

§ 97-52. Occupational disease made compensable; "accident" defined.

Disablement or death of an employee resulting from an occupational disease described in G.S. 97-53 shall be treated as the happening of an injury by accident within the meaning of the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act and the procedure and practice and compensation and other benefits provided by said act shall apply in all such cases except as hereinafter otherwise provided. The word "accident," as used in the Workers' Compensation Act, shall not be construed to mean a series of events in employment, of a similar or like nature, occurring regularly, continuously or at frequent intervals in the course of such employment, over extended periods of time, whether such events may or may not be attributable to fault of the employer and disease attributable to such causes shall be compensable only if culminating in an occupational disease mentioned in and compensable under this Article: Provided, however, no compensation shall be payable for asbestosis and/or silicosis as hereinafter defined if the employee, at the time of entering into the employment of the employer by whom compensation would otherwise be payable, falsely represented himself in writing as not having previously been disabled or laid off because of asbestosis or silicosis. History (1935, c. 123; 1979, c. 714, s. 2.) Legal Periodicals. - For survey of 1979 administrative law, see 58 N.C.L. Rev. 1185 (1980). For comment on injury by accident in workers' compensation, see 59 N.C.L. Rev. 175 (1980). For note on occupational disease under workers' compensation statute, see 16 Wake Forest L. Rev. 288 (1980). For survey of 1982 law on workers' compensation, see 61 N.C.L. Rev. 1243 (1983). For discussion of occupational disease compensation in light of Rutledge v. Tultex Corp./Kings Yarn, 308 N.C. 85 , 301 S.E.2d 370 (1983), see 62 N.C.L. Rev. 573 (1984). For note discussing proof of causation requirement in occupational disease cases, in light of Rutledge v. Tultex Corp./Kings Yarn, 308 N.C. 85 , 301 S.E.2d 359 (1983), see 7 Campbell L. Rev. 99 (1984). For note, "Caulder v. Waverly Mills: Expanding the Definition of an Occupational Disease Under the Last Injurious Exposure Rule," see 64 N.C.L. Rev. 1566 (1986). For comment, "A Proposal to Reform the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act to Address Mental-Mental Claims," see 32 Wake Forest L. Rev. 193 (1997). For comment on the reality of work-related stress, see 20 Campbell L. Rev. 321 (1998).