(a) The right to compensation under this Article shall be forever barred unless (i) a claim or memorandum of agreement as provided in G.S. 97-82 is filed with the Commission or the employee is paid compensation as provided under this Article within two years after the accident or (ii) a claim or memorandum of agreement as provided in G.S. 97-82 is filed with the Commission within two years after the last payment of medical compensation when no other compensation has been paid and when the employer's liability has not otherwise been established under this Article. The provisions of this subsection shall not limit the time otherwise allowed for the filing of a claim for compensation for occupational disease in G.S. 97-58, but in no event shall the time for filing a claim for compensation for occupational disease be less than the times provided herein for filing a claim for an injury by accident.
(b) If any claim for compensation is hereafter made upon the theory that such claim or the injury upon which said claim is based is within the jurisdiction of the Industrial Commission under the provisions of this Article, and if the Commission, or the appellate courts on appeal, shall adjudge that such claim is not within the Article, the claimant, or if he dies, his personal representative, shall have one year after the rendition of a final judgment in the case within which to commence an action at law.
(c) When all claims and reports required by this Article have been filed, and the cases and records of which they are a part have been closed by proper reports, receipts, awards or orders, these records, may after five years in the discretion of the Commission, with and by the authorization and approval of the Department of Natural and Cultural Resources, be destroyed by burning or otherwise. (1929, c. 120, s. 24; 1933, c. 449, s. 2; 1945, c. 766; 1955, c. 1026, s. 12; 1973, c. 476, s. 48; c. 1060, s. 1; 1991, c. 703, s. 8; 1993 (Reg. Sess., 1994), c. 679, s. 3.4; 2015-241, s. 14.30(s).)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
68
cases (
9 in the last 5 years), 1948–2026 · leading case:
Gore v. Myrtle/Mueller, 653 S.E.2d 400 (N.C. 2007).
Gore v. Myrtle/Mueller, 653 S.E.2d 400 (N.C. 2007).
· cites it 140× “This case arises from proceedings before the North Carolina Industrial Commission ("Commission") and raises the two issues of (1) whether a party may be equitably estopped, in the absence of bad faith, from raising the two year filing requirement in N.C.G.S § 97-24 as an…”
Hall v. U.S. Xpress, Inc., 808 S.E.2d 595 (N.C. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 47× “Defendants contend that plaintiff's claim was barred by the provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-24 (2016). This statute provides in relevant part that: (a) The right to compensation under this Article shall be forever barred unless (i) a claim .”
Reinhardt v. Women's Pavilion, Inc., 401 S.E.2d 138 (N.C. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 24× “No claim for compensation was filed with the Industrial Commission until 11 November 1987, in excess of the two-year period prescribed by G.S. § 97-24. No payment of compensation has ever been made by defendants.”
Hyler v. GTE Prods. Co., 425 S.E.2d 698 (N.C. 1993).
· cites it 12× “N.C.G.S. § 97-24 ("right to compensation under this Article shall be forever barred unless a claim be filed with the Industrial Commission within two years"; any claimant whose "claim for compensation" is determined not to be covered by the Act shall have one year after the…”
Craver v. Dixie Furniture Co., 447 S.E.2d 789 (N.C. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 21× “Plaintiff appeals an opinion and award of the North Carolina Industrial Commission (the Commission) dismissing her claim on grounds it was not filed within the two-year period set forth in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-24 (a) (1991). In so ruling, a majority of the full Commission…”
Erickson v. Siegler, 672 S.E.2d 772 (N.C. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 18× “In addition, on 9 March 2005, defendants submitted to the Commission a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that plaintiff had not timely filed a claim under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-24 (2007). On 21 June 2005, Dr.”
Belfield v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 335 S.E.2d 44 (N.C. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 8× “97-24(a): “The right to compensation under [the Workers’ Compensation Act] shall be forever barred unless a claim be filed with the Industrial Commission within two years after the accident.” By its language the statute ostensibly operates to automatically dispose of plaintiffs…”
Craver v. Dixie Furniture Co., 447 S.E.2d 789 (N.C. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 21× “2d 44, 46 (1985) (citation omitted). In addition, we have enunciated a rule to the effect that, in an attempt to achieve the overriding legislative purpose, "equitable estoppel may [be used to] prevent a party from raising the time limitation of G.”
Parker v. Thompson-Arthur Paving Co., 396 S.E.2d 626 (N.C. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 8× “this Court faced the question squarely and held that a party could be equitably estopped from asserting the two year time limitation in G.S. § 97-24 as a bar to jurisdiction. While dicta in Weston v.”
Reinhardt v. Women's Pavilion, Inc., 401 S.E.2d 138 (N.C. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 24× “No claim for compensation was filed with the Industrial Commission until 11 November 1987, in excess of the two-year period prescribed by G.S. § 97-24. No payment of compensation has ever been made by defendants.”
Daugherty v. Cherry Hosp., 670 S.E.2d 915 (N.C. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 8× “The Court determined that the doctrine of equitable estoppel may be invoked to prevent an employer from asserting the time limitation in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-24 1 as an affirmative defense, although the Court further concluded that the facts of that case were insufficient to…”
Biddix v. Rex Mills, Inc., 75 S.E.2d 777 (N.C. 1953).
· cites it 9× “A majority of the Commission reversed on the ground that the defendants, by their conduct, lulled plaintiff into a sense of security and are now estopped to plead the statute, G.S. § 97-24. To reach this conclusion, they had resort to matters appearing in the files of the…”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-24(a) — 20 cases
Gore v. Myrtle/Mueller, 653 S.E.2d 400 (N.C. 2007).
“This case arises from proceedings before the North Carolina Industrial Commission ("Commission") and raises the two issues of (1) whether a party may be equitably estopped, in the absence of bad faith, from raising the two year filing requirement in N.C.G.S § 97-24 as an…”
Craver v. Dixie Furniture Co., 447 S.E.2d 789 (N.C. Ct. App. 1994).
“Plaintiff appeals an opinion and award of the North Carolina Industrial Commission (the Commission) dismissing her claim on grounds it was not filed within the two-year period set forth in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-24 (a) (1991). In so ruling, a majority of the full Commission…”
Craver v. Dixie Furniture Co., 447 S.E.2d 789 (N.C. Ct. App. 1994).
“2d 44, 46 (1985) (citation omitted). In addition, we have enunciated a rule to the effect that, in an attempt to achieve the overriding legislative purpose, "equitable estoppel may [be used to] prevent a party from raising the time limitation of G.”
Parker v. Thompson-Arthur Paving Co., 396 S.E.2d 626 (N.C. Ct. App. 1990).
“this Court faced the question squarely and held that a party could be equitably estopped from asserting the two year time limitation in G.S. § 97-24 as a bar to jurisdiction. While dicta in Weston v.”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-24(a)(ii) — 6 cases
Hall v. U.S. Xpress, Inc., 808 S.E.2d 595 (N.C. Ct. App. 2017).
“Defendants contend that plaintiff's claim was barred by the provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-24 (2016). This statute provides in relevant part that: (a) The right to compensation under this Article shall be forever barred unless (i) a claim .”
Erickson v. Siegler, 672 S.E.2d 772 (N.C. Ct. App. 2009).
“In addition, on 9 March 2005, defendants submitted to the Commission a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that plaintiff had not timely filed a claim under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-24 (2007). On 21 June 2005, Dr.”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-24(b) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.