N.C. Gen. Stat. » Chapter 97
NC General Statutes

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-3 (2026)

Presumption that all employers and employees have come under provisions of Article

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NCLEGncleg.gov (official) JustiaChapter 97 CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

From and after January 1, 1975, every employer and employee, as hereinbefore defined and except as herein stated, shall be presumed to have accepted the provisions of this Article respectively to pay and accept compensation for personal injury or death by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment and shall be bound thereby. (1929, c. 120, s. 4; 1973, c. 1291, s. 1.)

 

§ 97-4: Repealed by Session Laws 1973, c. 1291, s. 2.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1947–2026 · leading case: Hyler v. GTE Prods. Co., 425 S.E.2d 698 (N.C. 1993).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hyler v. GTE Prods. Co., 425 S.E.2d 698 (N.C. 1993). · cites it 6× “Indeed, to construe "compensation" to exclude medical and hospital expenses would wholly exclude medical treatment from employers' duties in many contexts: N.C.G.S. § 97-3 (duty of employer and employee, respectively, to accept the provisions of the Article to respectively pay…”
Buser v. S. Food Serv., Inc., 73 F. Supp. 2d 556 (M.D.N.C. 1999). · cites it 4× “§ 97-3. In exchange for such compensation, employees relinquish certain rights and remedies: If the employee and the employer are subject to and have complied with the provisions of this Article, then the rights and remedies herein granted to the employee .”
Reece v. Forga, 531 S.E.2d 881 (N.C. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 4× “N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-3 ; Miller v. Roberts, supra.”
Thomas v. N. Telecom, Inc., 157 F. Supp. 2d 627 (M.D.N.C. 2000). · cites it 4× “1; (2) Plaintiff alleges nothing other than employment discrimination — an inherently intentional act — and therefore Plaintiff has not, as a matter of law, also alleged negligent acts; and (3) because the conduct Plaintiff alleges falls short of “extreme and outrageous”…”
Tyndall v. Walter Kidde & Co., 403 S.E.2d 548 (N.C. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 3× “” N.C.G.S. § 97-3. “Disablement or death of an employee resulting from an occupational disease .”
Atkins v. USF Dugan, Inc., 106 F. Supp. 2d 799 (M.D.N.C. 1999). · cites it 4× “shall be presumed to have accepted the provisions of this Article [the WCA] respectively to pay and accept compensation for personal injury or death by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment and shall be bound thereby.”
Riley v. Debaer, 562 S.E.2d 69 (N.C. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 6× “N.C.G.S. § 97-3 (1999) (emphasis added). Cf.”
Trivette v. Yount, 720 S.E.2d 732 (N.C. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-3 (2009). The facts before this Court establish Ms.”
Wood v. J. P. Stevens & Co., 256 S.E.2d 692 (N.C. 1979). “Similarly, we note that our original Workmen’s Compensation Act was made binding on all qualified employers and employees who failed to give notice of nonacceptance, despite the fact that their employment contracts may have antedated adoption of the act, G.S. 97-3, 97-5, and…”
Gregory v. Pearson, 736 S.E.2d 577 (N.C. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-3 (2011). “No contract or agreement, written or implied, no rule, regulation, or other device shall in any manner operate to relieve an employer in whole or in part, of any obligation created by this Article, except as herein otherwise expressly provided.”
FULCHER BY WALL v. Willard's Cab Co., 511 S.E.2d 9 (N.C. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “The Commission's findings do not show that defendant had the right to exert an employer's degree of control over Wall. Because an employer-employee relationship is a prerequisite to coverage by, and recovery under, the Workers' Compensation Act, see N.”
Wiggins v. Rufus Tart Trucking Co., 305 S.E.2d 749 (N.C. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 3× “G.S. 97-3 and 97-4, on which Crawford was based, required an employer to give notice as provided therein when he was rejecting the provisions of the Act which he had previously presumptively accepted by his purchase of a Workers’ Compensation insurance policy.”
Show all 26 citing cases →
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-3(6) — 2 cases
Buser v. S. Food Serv., Inc., 73 F. Supp. 2d 556 (M.D.N.C. 1999). “§ 97-3. In exchange for such compensation, employees relinquish certain rights and remedies: If the employee and the employer are subject to and have complied with the provisions of this Article, then the rights and remedies herein granted to the employee .”
Atkins v. USF Dugan, Inc., 106 F. Supp. 2d 799 (M.D.N.C. 1999). “shall be presumed to have accepted the provisions of this Article [the WCA] respectively to pay and accept compensation for personal injury or death by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment and shall be bound thereby.”
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.