Carver v. N.C. Department of Correction
This text of Carver v. N.C. Department of Correction (Carver v. N.C. Department of Correction) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering North Carolina Industrial Commission primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
2. Specifically, defendant alleges Carver did not provide an affidavit from a doctor or medical expert pursuant to Rule 9(j) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure with his Tort Claim Affidavit.
3. NCDOC moved to dismiss Carver's claim for failure to comply with Rule 9(j) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure.
4. During the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner and in his Tort Claim Affidavit filed with the North Carolina Industrial Commission, plaintiff stated medical negligence in NCDOC's treatment of injuries he received while on prison work detail.
5. On August 3, 2007, the Deputy Commissioner filed an Interlocutory Decision and Order stating that Plaintiff shall have one hundred and twenty days to comply with Rule 9(j) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure by securing an affidavit from a medical expert who has reviewed plaintiff's claim and is willing to testify that the physician operating on plaintiff breached the applicable standard of care. The Interlocutory Decision and Order provided that should Plaintiff fail to provide such letter or affidavit from a doctor or medical expert within the time permitted, Plaintiff's civil action would be dismissed.
6. Upon review of Plaintiff's file, the Full Commission finds that Plaintiff has failed to provide such affidavit to the Industrial Commission.
2. Pursuant to Rule 9(j) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure "[a]ny complaint alleging medical malpractice by a health care provider as defined in N.C. Gen. Stat. §
a. The pleading specifically asserts that the medical care has been reviewed by a person who is reasonably expected to qualify as an expert witness under Rule 702 of the Rules of Evidence and who is willing to testify that the medical care did not comply with the applicable standard of care;
b. The pleading specifically asserts that the medical care has been reviewed by a person that the complainant will seek to have qualified as an expert witness by motion under Rule 702(e) of the Rules of Evidence and who is willing to testify that the medical care did not comply with the applicable standard of care, and the motion is filed with the complaint; or
c. The pleading alleges facts establishing negligence under the existing common-law doctrine of res ipsa loquitur."
3. Plaintiff has not provided an affidavit as required by Rule 9(j) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure within the time permitted by the Interlocutory Decision and Order filed on August 3, 2007, and the claim for medical negligence does not meet any of the exceptions for an affidavit. *Page 4
2. No costs are taxed as plaintiff was permitted to file this civil action in forma pauperis. This 28th day of July 2008.
S/___________________ CHRISTOPHER SCOTT COMMISSIONER
CONCURRING:
*Page 1S/___________________ BERNADINE S. BALLANCE COMMISSIONER
S/___________________ DIANNE C. SELLERS COMMISSIONER
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Carver v. N.C. Department of Correction, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carver-v-nc-department-of-correction-ncworkcompcom-2008.