differently depending on the issues involved, that phrase is ambiguous when included in a statute, at least in the workers’ compensation context. Compare Chambers v. Transit Mgmt., 360 N.C. 609, 618, 619, 636 S.E.2d 553, 559 (2006) (explaining that in order to prove “causal connection” between specific traumatic event and injury, plaintiff must show that injury was “ ‘the direct result of a specific traumatic incident’ ” (quoting N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-2(6) (2005)) with Morrison v. Burlington Indus., 304 N.C. 1, 39, 43, 282 S.E.2d 458, 481, 484 (1981) (requiring for “causal connection” a showing that “occupational conditions . . . significantly contributed to the [occupational] disease’s development”), and Gallimore v. Marilyn’s Shoes, 292 N.C. 399, 402, 233 S.E.2d 529, 531 (1977) (<HOLDING>). When confronted with ambiguous statutory
holding that the language of the statute clearly requires  proof of a causal connection between the drivers intoxication and the death of another person holding that the claimant committed willful misconduct when she did not return to work at the end of her leave and did not comply with her employers notification policy holding that claimant committed willful misconduct when she did not return to work at the end of her leave and did not comply with her employers notification policy holding decedents death did not arise out of her employment due to lack of causal connection between work and death since nature of work did not increase risk she would be slain by criminal act holding that plaintiffs failure to prove decedents death was caused by the wrongful acts of the defendant precludes any recovery of wrongful death damages under mississippis wrongful death statute