North Carolina Injury Lawyer Blog

In a recent North Carolina appellate decision, the court considered an appeal dismissing a plaintiff’s complaint against a doctor, health care system, and physician group. The plaintiff had sued the defendants, asking for money damages for medical negligence after the defendant doctor performed heart surgery on the plaintiff. During surgery, the doctor didn’t control or monitor the plaintiff, and while she was open with surgical tools inside her, she fell from the surgical table. Her head and body hit the floor.

She suffered a jaw injury, bruises, and a concussion and was battered on the side of her body. Later, she’d have nightmares about the fall. A process server served the physician group by serving its registered agent in September 2015. Ten days later, the doctor was served. Five days later, the health care system was served by delivering the complaint to its CFO.

The doctor and physician group answered and moved to dismiss. They denied the allegations and raised various defenses. The health care system moved to dismiss. The CFO provided an affidavit, explaining he was just the CFO, rather than the registered agent.

Continue reading

In a recent North Carolina appellate case, the plaintiffs appealed from a judgment in favor of a women’s center and two health care providers. According to their complaint, one of the plaintiffs had come under the medical care of the defendants to manage her pregnancy. In March 2007, she was admitted for the medical induction of labor after her pregnancy progressed a week past her expected delivery date. Seven days after admission, there was a notation that a Pitocin induction was planned and would continue with increasing dosage throughout the day.

A couple of days later, the defendant doctor assumed responsibility for her obstetrical care during labor, while the defendant midwife assumed responsibility for midwifery care during that time. The midwife made a record in the woman’s chart that Pitocin would be administered again to the woman. An hour and a half later, she’d ordered that the dosage should stay at six mu/min. About an hour later, the midwife conducted a vaginal exam and found that the woman’s cervix was six cm dilated and consulted with the defendant doctor.

Almost an hour later, the defendant doctor performed a vaginal exam and found she was fully dilated at 10 cm. They stopped the Pitocin administration, and the midwife was paged. The woman started pushing, but a little over an hour later, she was only making slow progress.

Continue reading

In a recent North Carolina appellate decision, an aircraft company appealed from a denial of its motion to dismiss. The plaintiff was the executor of a couple’s estates. He sued the aircraft company as well as four other companies. Two of the defendants were North Carolina corporations, known as the AirCare defendants.

The case arose when the couple was flying in an aircraft piloted by the wife. The engine lost oil pressure and failed to make power, and then it lost power. The aircraft went through a forced landing, in which it crashed into trees and caught fire. The couple was killed. According to the complaint, the engine was defective, but this was not detected by the decedents before they took off, and the engine suffered from starvation of oil to its rotating components.

The other defendants, known as the CMI defendants, and an aircraft company had supplied parts to be installed during the maintenance of the aircraft by the AirCare defendants. These parts included a starter adapter gear, which could result in this type of failure if it was improperly installed. The plaintiff sued on the basis of negligence, breach of express and implied warranties, strict liability, and negligent misrepresentation against various combinations of the parties.

Continue reading

In a recent North Carolina appellate decision, the defendants appealed from a motion to dismiss on the basis of public official immunity. A child and his mother sued the defendants for negligence, gross negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, medical malpractice, and punitive damages. They alleged that after the child was born, the defendants, who were employees of the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, followed screening procedures for newborns that they knew wouldn’t be sufficient for older infants. As a result, they missed diagnosing a metabolism error in the child that later resulted in an emergency that caused him permanent, severe brain damage.

The defendants moved to dismiss and strike, claiming that the court couldn’t hear the lawsuit because they were being sued as government employees, and the State hadn’t waived sovereign immunity, so as public officials, they were entitled to immunities provided to public officials.

On the hearing date, the plaintiffs argued that they’d amended the complaint to show they were suing the defendants as individuals rather than as public officials. The court granted the plaintiffs’ amended motion to amend their complaint again. It denied the motions to dismiss. The plaintiffs amended their complaint, and the defendants answered. They appealed the orders denying the dismissals.

Continue reading

In a recent North Carolina appellate case, the court considered parents’ claims related to the negligent injury of their minor daughter. The parents had sued a major chain restaurant in Durham County, alleging that it was incorporated in California but engaged in commerce within North Carolina under a Certificate of Authority and did business with the public in counties in North Carolina.

The parents claimed they ordered half a regular cheesecake and half an ultimate red velvet cheesecake from the defendant’s restaurant at a mall. The plaintiff told the defendant that her daughter was severely allergic to nuts and was told that the type of cheesecake the plaintiff ordered didn’t have nuts. However, an employee made a mistake and gave the plaintiff half a low carb cheesecake instead of a regular one. The low carb version had nuts. The minor daughter became violently sick due to the nuts and needed to be hospitalized.

The defendant moved to dismiss on the ground that the county where the complaint was filed was not the proper venue, since its registered office was in Wake County rather than Durham. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss but did transfer the case. The plaintiffs appealed the change in venue. It argued that this was a reversible error.

Continue reading

In a recent North Carolina appellate case, a two-year-old child sued several individuals and the executrix of an estate that was doing business as a childcare center. The child was going to the childcare center in 2010 on the date in question. While running on the daycare property, she was hit by another kid who was also attending the center. She suffered serious injuries, including a leg fracture.

Through her guardian ad litem, she sued, claiming that various individuals who ran the daycare were negligent and thereby legally caused her injuries. She argued that they failed to keep the premises reasonably safe, failed to properly supervise the kids, failed to enforce rules, and failed to keep kids on the premises from running, among other things.

The defendants responded. The parties filed a consent order subsequently, dismissing three individual defendants without prejudice. The only defendant left was the executrix of the estate, which was doing business as the childcare center. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, which was denied. At trial, the director of the childcare center testified at a videotaped deposition that the plaintiff was one of the kids at the center on the date of the incident. There were four staff members and 18 kids on the playground. Each staff member took 1/4 of the playground so that the kids were carefully supervised.

Continue reading

You should consult an attorney as soon as you know you’ve suffered injuries, or you risk facing the loss of your ability to recover for damages based on the statute or limitations as well as the statute of repose.

In an unpublished North Carolina appellate case, the plaintiff appealed from orders that granted a college’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. The case arose from an alleged sexual assault of the plaintiff by the college’s soccer coach. According to the plaintiff, the college was aware of other sexual assault claims against the soccer coach, but didn’t take any measures to stop further sexual assaults and didn’t let the police know.

The plaintiff claimed law enforcement officers first contacted him in 2012 and told him that his mother had complained to the college in 1990 about the sexual abuse he’d suffered. He first knew that the college was aware of pre-1990 allegations while meeting with law enforcement officers in 2012.

Continue reading