Moore v. Pitt County Memorial Hosp.
Decision Date | 22 February 2001 |
Docket Number | No. 4:00-CV-148-H(3).,4:00-CV-148-H(3). |
Citation | 139 F.Supp.2d 712 |
Parties | Adriann MOORE, Plaintiff, v. PITT COUNTY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL and The National Red Cross, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of North Carolina |
W. Dudley Whitley, III, Battle, Winslow, Scott & Wiley, Rocky Mount, NC, W. Darrell Whitley, Denton, NC, for plaintiffs.
C. David Creech, Harris, Shields & Creech, New Bern, NC, Walter G. Merritt, Harris, Shields, Creech & Ward, New Bern, NC, Bradley M. Risinger, Smith, Helms, Mulliss & Moore, Raleigh, NC, for defendants.
This case is before the court on Pitt County Memorial Hospital's Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to file a medical affidavit under Rule 9(j) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. The parties have submitted briefs in support of their positions. This matter is ripe for adjudication.
Plaintiff Adriann Moore filed this case in Pitt County Superior Court alleging negligence, res ipsa loquitur, and failure to warn against Pitt County Memorial Hospital ("PCMH") and the National American Red Cross ("Red Cross"). The facts allege that on May 8, 1997, plaintiff received a blood transfusion at PCMH with blood obtained from the Red Cross. Plaintiff states that as a result of the transfusion administered at PCMH, she contracted Hepatis C. Red Cross removed this case to federal court on September 19, 2000.
PCMH seeks dismissal of claims asserted against it because plaintiff's complaint failed to assert that "the medical care ha[d] been reviewed by a person who is reasonably expected to qualify as an expert witness" as required by Rule 9(j) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure for medical malpractice actions.
Plaintiff first asserts that the current action does not allege a medical malpractice action because it is asserted against a hospital. The court disagrees. A "medical malpractice action" is defined as a civil action for damages "arising out of the furnishing or failure to furnish professional services in the performance of medical, dental, or other health care by a health care provider." N.C. Gen.Stat. § 90-21.11 (emphasis added). Unlike the cause of action asserted against a blood bank in Doe v. American Nat'l Red Cross, 798 F.Supp. 301 (E.D.N.C.1992), the North Carolina legislature has specifically included hospitals within the definition of "health care providers." Thus a medical malpractice action may arise between a hospital and patient. See Keith v. Northern Hosp. Dist., 129 N.C.App. 402, 499 S.E.2d 200, 202 (1998) ( ); see also Horton v. Carolina Medicorp, Inc., 344 N.C. 133, 472 S.E.2d 778, 781 (1996) () .
Plaintiff next asserts that her claims allege ordinary negligence rather than negligence under medical...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wright v. U.S.
...evidence. Plaintiffs claim negligence by DVAMC, which is a health care provider under North Carolina law. Moore v. Pitt County Mem'l Hosp., 139 F.Supp.2d 712, 713 (E.D.N.C.2001); Estate of Waters v. Jarman, 144 N.C.App. 98, 101-02, 547 S.E.2d 142, 144-45 (2001). They allege that Defendant, ......
-
Stockton v. Wake Cnty.
...F.Supp.2d 636, 649 (M.D.N.C.2004) ; Frazier v. Angel Med. Ctr., 308 F.Supp.2d 671, 676–77 (W.D.N.C.2004) ; Moore v. Pitt County Mem'l Hosp., 139 F.Supp.2d 712, 713–14 (E.D.N.C.2001) ; see also Thigpen v. N go 355 N.C. 198, 202, 558 S.E.2d 162, 165 (2002). Section 90–21.11 of the North Carol......
-
Bransgaard v. United States Bureau of Prisons Health Serv. Staff
...R. Civ. P. 9(j)(1), (2); see, e.g., Frazier v. Angel Med. Ctr., 308 F. Supp. 2d 671, 676 (W.D.N.C. 2004); Moore v. Pitt County Mem'l Hosp., 139 F. Supp. 2d 712, 713 (E.D.N.C. 2001). Alternatively, the complaint must allege facts establishing negligence under the common-law doctrine of res i......
-
Nunn v. Hunt
...2d 636, 649 (M.D.N.C. 2004); Frazier v. Angel Med. Ctr., 308 F. Supp. 2d 671, 676-77 (W.D.N.C. 2004); Moore v. Pitt Cnty. Mem'l Hosp., 139 F. Supp. 2d 712, 713-14 (E.D.N.C. 2001). The North Carolina legislature did not create an exception for ignorance or good cause in enacting Rule 9(j). A......