NC General Statutes

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-58 (2026)

Time limit for filing claims

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

(a) Repealed by Session Laws 1987, c. 729, s. 13.

(b) The report and notice to the employer as required by G.S. 97-22 shall apply in all cases of occupational disease except in case of asbestosis, silicosis, or lead poisoning. The time of notice of an occupational disease shall run from the date that the employee has been advised by competent medical authority that he has same.

(c) The right to compensation for occupational disease shall be barred unless a claim be filed with the Industrial Commission within two years after death, disability, or disablement as the case may be. Provided, however, that the right to compensation for radiation injury, disability or death shall be barred unless a claim is filed within two years after the date upon which the employee first suffered incapacity from the exposure to radiation and either knew or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known that the occupational disease was caused by his present or prior employment. (1935, c. 123; 1945, c. 762; 1955, c. 525, s. 6; 1963, c. 553, s. 2; 1973, c. 1060, s. 3; 1981, c. 734, s. 1; 1987, c. 729, s. 13.)

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 57 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1948–2025 · leading case: Dowdy v. Fieldcrest Mills, Inc., 304 S.E.2d 215 (N.C. 1983).
Dowdy v. Fieldcrest Mills, Inc., 304 S.E.2d 215 (N.C. 1983). · cites it 50× “We hold that the plaintiff's claim was not timely filed and that the defendant may raise this fact as a defense.”
Wilder v. Amatex Corp., 336 S.E.2d 66 (N.C. 1985). · cites it 26× “But another subsection of G.S. 97-58 requires that claims for occupational diseases "shall be barred unless .”
Hogan v. Cone Mills Corp., 337 S.E.2d 477 (N.C. 1985). · cites it 18× “Defendants moved to dismiss on the ground the claim was not filed within two years after Hogan became disabled as required by N.C.G.S. § 97-58(c). Deputy Commissioner Rich denied defendants’ motion and entered an Opinion and Award finding Hogan totally disabled and awarding him…”
Taylor v. J. P. Stevens & Co., 265 S.E.2d 144 (N.C. 1980). · cites it 12× “—(a) [A]n employer shall not be liable for any compensation for asbestosis or silicosis or lead poisoning unless disablement or death results within two years after the last exposure to such disease, or, in case of death, unless death follows continuous disablement from such…”
Hyler v. GTE Prods. Co., 425 S.E.2d 698 (N.C. 1993). · cites it 6× “N.C.G.S. § 97-58 (the right to "compensation" for occupational diseases and radiation injuries is barred unless timely filed).”
Terrell v. Terminix Servs., Inc., 542 S.E.2d 332 (N.C. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 9× “The time of notice of an occupational disease shall run from the date that the employee has been advised by competent medical authority that he has same.”
Poythress v. JP Stevens & Co., Inc., 283 S.E.2d 573 (N.C. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 9× “G.S. 97-58 reads: “The right to compensation for occupational disease shall be barred unless a claim be filed with the Industrial Commission within two years after death, disability, or disablement as the case may be.”
Lentz v. Phil's Toy Store, 747 S.E.2d 127 (N.C. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 8× “” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-58 (c) (2011). Plaintiff contends that his right to bring an occupational disease claim is controlled by the statute of limitations in section 97-58(c) and does not begin until he has been advised by competent medical authority of the work-related cause of…”
Rainey v. City of Charlotte, 785 S.E.2d 766 (N.C. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 8× “§ 97-58(c) (2015). Subsection (b) further provides that "[t]he time of notice of an occupational disease shall run from the date that the employee has been advised by competent medical authority that he has [the] same.”
Young v. . Whitehall Co., 49 S.E.2d 797 (N.C. 1948). · cites it 3× “G. S., 97-58. The hearing here was not held until approximately eleven months after plaintiff’s labors ceased.”
Lawson v. Cone Mills Corp., 315 S.E.2d 103 (N.C. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 6× “N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-58 (1979) in pertinent part provides: (b) .”
Perdue v. Daniel Int'l, Inc., 296 S.E.2d 845 (N.C. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 4× “97-24, relating to injury by accident, and G.S. 97-58, relating to injury from industrial disease.”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-58(a) — 6 cases
Wilder v. Amatex Corp., 336 S.E.2d 66 (N.C. 1985). “But another subsection of G.S. 97-58 requires that claims for occupational diseases "shall be barred unless .”
Taylor v. J. P. Stevens & Co., 265 S.E.2d 144 (N.C. 1980). “—(a) [A]n employer shall not be liable for any compensation for asbestosis or silicosis or lead poisoning unless disablement or death results within two years after the last exposure to such disease, or, in case of death, unless death follows continuous disablement from such…”
Roberts v. Se. Magnesia & Asbestos Co., 301 S.E.2d 742 (N.C. Ct. App. 1983).
Singleton v. DT Vance Mica Co., 69 S.E.2d 707 (N.C. 1952).
Martin v. Petroleum Tank Serv., 309 S.E.2d 536 (N.C. Ct. App. 1983).
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-58(b) — 17 cases
Wilder v. Amatex Corp., 336 S.E.2d 66 (N.C. 1985). “But another subsection of G.S. 97-58 requires that claims for occupational diseases "shall be barred unless .”
Taylor v. J. P. Stevens & Co., 265 S.E.2d 144 (N.C. 1980). “—(a) [A]n employer shall not be liable for any compensation for asbestosis or silicosis or lead poisoning unless disablement or death results within two years after the last exposure to such disease, or, in case of death, unless death follows continuous disablement from such…”
Terrell v. Terminix Servs., Inc., 542 S.E.2d 332 (N.C. Ct. App. 2001). “The time of notice of an occupational disease shall run from the date that the employee has been advised by competent medical authority that he has same.”
Dowdy v. Fieldcrest Mills, Inc., 304 S.E.2d 215 (N.C. 1983). “We hold that the plaintiff's claim was not timely filed and that the defendant may raise this fact as a defense.”
Perdue v. Daniel Int'l, Inc., 296 S.E.2d 845 (N.C. Ct. App. 1982). “97-24, relating to injury by accident, and G.S. 97-58, relating to injury from industrial disease.”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-58(b)(c) — 1 case
Clary v. A. M. Smyre Mfg. Co., 300 S.E.2d 704 (N.C. Ct. App. 1983).
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-58(c) — 22 cases
Dowdy v. Fieldcrest Mills, Inc., 304 S.E.2d 215 (N.C. 1983). “We hold that the plaintiff's claim was not timely filed and that the defendant may raise this fact as a defense.”
Hogan v. Cone Mills Corp., 337 S.E.2d 477 (N.C. 1985). “Defendants moved to dismiss on the ground the claim was not filed within two years after Hogan became disabled as required by N.C.G.S. § 97-58(c). Deputy Commissioner Rich denied defendants’ motion and entered an Opinion and Award finding Hogan totally disabled and awarding him…”
Taylor v. J. P. Stevens & Co., 265 S.E.2d 144 (N.C. 1980). “—(a) [A]n employer shall not be liable for any compensation for asbestosis or silicosis or lead poisoning unless disablement or death results within two years after the last exposure to such disease, or, in case of death, unless death follows continuous disablement from such…”
Poythress v. JP Stevens & Co., Inc., 283 S.E.2d 573 (N.C. Ct. App. 1981). “G.S. 97-58 reads: “The right to compensation for occupational disease shall be barred unless a claim be filed with the Industrial Commission within two years after death, disability, or disablement as the case may be.”
Wilder v. Amatex Corp., 336 S.E.2d 66 (N.C. 1985). “But another subsection of G.S. 97-58 requires that claims for occupational diseases "shall be barred unless .”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-58(e) — 1 case
Poythress v. JP Stevens & Co., Inc., 283 S.E.2d 573 (N.C. Ct. App. 1981). “G.S. 97-58 reads: “The right to compensation for occupational disease shall be barred unless a claim be filed with the Industrial Commission within two years after death, disability, or disablement as the case may be.”
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.