Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 North Carolina opinions name it 1 courts 2002–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by North Carolina courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Yingling v. Bank of Americagreen2 sentences2020As to the argument Defendants were prejudiced by being unable to direct medical care, we have “long held that the right to direct medical treatment is triggered only when the employer has accepted the claim as compensable.” Yingling v. Bank of Am., 225 N.C. 2020As to the argument Defendants were prejudiced by being unable to direct medical care, we have “long held that the right to direct medical treatment is triggered only when the employer has accepted the claim as compensable.” Yingling v. Bank of Am., 225 N.C. | 2 | 2 |
Kanipe v. Lane Upholsterygreen2 sentences2013Moreover, this Court has long held that “the right to direct medical treatment is triggered only when the employer has accepted the claim as compensable.” Id. at 624 , 540 S.E.2d at 788 . 2002Further, this finding by the Industrial Commission supports its conclusion that “[defendants, having failed to admit liability for plaintiff’s claim, did not obtain the right to direct plaintiff’s medical treatment.” “[T]he right to direct medical treatment is triggered only when the employer has accepted the claim as compensable.” Kanipe v. Lane Upholstery, 141 N.C. | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Craven v. VF Corp.
green
1 sentence2013Craven v. VF Corp., 167 N.C. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.