All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the North Carolina Reports and North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the North Carolina Reports and North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA

No. 696A05

FILED: 6 OCTOBER 2006

AMY TERASAKA, Employee

v.

AT&T, Employer,

SELF-INSURED (Gates McDonald, Servicing Agent)

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. §7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, ___ N.C. App. ___, 622 S.E.2d 145 (2005), reversing an opinion and award filed on 5 August 2004 by the North Carolina Industrial Commission. On 2 March 2006, the Supreme Court allowed defendant’s petition for discretionary review as to additional issues. Heard in the Supreme Court 12 September 2006.

Frederick R. Stann for plaintiff-appellant/appellee.

Brooks, Stevens & Pope, P.A., by Joy H. Brewer and Kimberley A. D’Arruda, for defendant-appellee/appellant.

PER CURIAM.

As to the appeal of right based on the dissenting opinion, we affirm the majority decision of the Court of Appeals. We conclude that the petition for discretionary review as to additional issues was improvidently allowed.

AFFIRMED; DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IMPROVIDENTLY ALLOWED.