Anderson v. Assimos
Decision Date | 22 November 2002 |
Docket Number | No. 621A01.,621A01. |
Citation | 572 S.E.2d 101,356 N.C. 415 |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Parties | Margaret Wrenn ANDERSON v. Dr. Dean George ASSIMOS, M.D., Dr. R. Lawrence Kroovard, M.D., Dr. Mark R. Hess, M.D., Wake Forest University Physicians, Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center, The Medical Center of Bowman Gray School of Medicine and North Carolina Baptist Hospital and The North Carolina Baptist Hospitals, Incorporated. |
Mary K. Nicholson, Greensboro, for plaintiff-appellee.
Tuggle, Duggins & Meschan, P.A., by J. Reed Johnston, Jr., Amanda L. Fields, and Robert A. Ford, Greensboro, for defendant-appellants.
North Carolina Chapter of the American Society of Healthcare Risk Management of the American Hospital Association by Thomas L. Eure, Ken M. Nanney, and Ronald Burris, amicus curiae.
Faison & Gillespie by O. William Faison, John W. Jensen, Jonathan C. Sauls, and Kristen L. Beightol, on behalf of the North Carolina Academy of Trial Lawyers, amicus curiae.
Center for Constitutional Litigation, P.C. by Robert S. Peck, on behalf of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America; and the American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina Legal Foundation, Inc. by Seth H. Jaffe, amici curiae.
Smith, Anderson, Blount, Dorsett, Mitchell & Jernigan, L.L.P. by James D. Blount, Jr., Michael W. Mitchell, Christopher G. Smith, and J. Mitchell Armbruster, on behalf of North Carolina Medical Society, North Carolina Hospital Association, the Medical Specialty Societies, North Carolina Medical Group Managers, Old North State Medical Society, and North Carolina Association of Physicians of Indian Origin; and Manning, Fulton & Skinner, P.A. by John B. McMillan, on behalf of North Carolina Citizens for Business and Industry and National Federation of Independent Business, amici curiae.
The Court of Appeals concluded that Rule 9(j) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure violates Article I, Section 18 of the North Carolina Constitution and the Equal Protection Clauses of the North Carolina and United States Constitutions. Anderson v. Assimos, 146 N.C.App. 339, 553 S.E.2d 63 (2001).
A constitutional issue not raised at trial will generally not be considered for the first time on appeal. State v. Nobles, 350 N.C. 483, 495, 515 S.E.2d 885, 893 (1999); Porter v. Suburban Sanitation Serv., Inc., 283 N.C. 479, 490, 196 S.E.2d 760, 767 (1973). Furthermore, the courts of this State will avoid constitutional questions, even if properly presented, where a case may be resolved on other grounds. State v. Crabtree, 286 N.C. 541, 543, 212 S.E.2d 103, 105 (1975); see Rice v. Rigsby, 259 N.C. 506, 512, 131 S.E.2d 469, 473 (1963)
.
136 S.E.2d at 34, or "`swap horses between courts in order to get a better mount,'" State v. Sharpe, 344 N.C. 190, 194, 473 S.E.2d 3, 5 (1996) (quoting Weil v. Herring, 207 N.C. 6, 10, 175 S.E. 836, 838 (1934)). Therefore, for purposes of this action, plaintiff's negligence claim is based solely on res ipsa loquitur.
Res ipsa loquitur claims are normally based on facts that permit an inference of defendant's negligence. See, e.g...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Louk v. Cormier
...903 So.2d 392, 399 (La.2005) (same); State v. Ronning, 2005 WL 1088435, at *5 (Minn.Ct.App.2005) (same); Anderson v. Assimos, 356 N.C. 415, 572 S.E.2d 101, 102 (2002) (same); Roseborough v. Scott, 875 P.2d 1160, 1165 (Okla.Ct.App.1994) (same); Bassi v. Rhode Island Insurers' Insolvency Fund......
-
Wright v. U.S.
...S.E.2d at 659. The recent case of Anderson v. Assimos, 146 N.C.App. 339, 553 S.E.2d 63 (2001), vacated on other grounds, 356 N.C. 415, 417, 572 S.E.2d 101, 103 (2002), confirms this rule. In Anderson, the court found that the side effects of gentamicin, a drug given to the plaintiff, and po......
-
Coker v. Daimlerchrysler Corp., COA04-523.
...we consider the same allegations and arguments present at the trial level and properly presented here. Anderson v. Assimos, 356 N.C. 415, 417, 572 S.E.2d 101, 102 (2002) (the pleadings have a binding effect as to the underlying theories of the case); Parrish v. Bryant, 237 N.C. 256, 259, 74......
-
State v. Malone
..."avoid constitutional questions, even if properly presented, where a case may be resolved on other grounds." Anderson v. Assimos , 356 N.C. 415, 416, 572 S.E.2d 101, 102 (2002). See also Union Carbide Corp. v. Davis , 253 N.C. 324, 327, 116 S.E.2d 792, 794 (1960) (stating that "[c]ourts mus......
-
A Rogue Rule?: An Exposè on the Unresolved Issues and Needless Litigation created by Ohio's Affidavit of Merit Rule
...MINN. STATE ANN. § 145.682 (subdiv. 3) (West 2005); N.Y. CIVIL PRACTICE LAW § 3012-a(c) (McKinney 2007). 147 See Anderson v. Assimos, 572 S.E.2d 101, 103 (N.C. 2002); see also N.C. R. CIVIL P. 9(j). 148 Anderson , 572 S.E.2d at 103. 1176 CAPITAL UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [37:1155 does not provi......