{
  "id": 11793672,
  "name": "YVETTE P. TUCKER and LARRY TUCKER, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. DR. PAUL J. MEIS, and NORTH CAROLINA BAPTIST HOSPITALS, Defendants-Appellees",
  "name_abbreviation": "Tucker v. Meis",
  "decision_date": "1997-08-05",
  "docket_number": "No. COA96-1293",
  "first_page": "197",
  "last_page": "199",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "127 N.C. App. 197"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "309 S.E.2d 219",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1983,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "225",
          "parenthetical": "noting that \"[i]t is clear from the wording of this statute that the test is not that of a statewide standard of health care.\""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "309 N.C. 710",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4761485
      ],
      "year": 1983,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "721",
          "parenthetical": "noting that \"[i]t is clear from the wording of this statute that the test is not that of a statewide standard of health care.\""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/309/0710-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "299 S.E.2d 473",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1983,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "noting that \"[i]t is clear from the wording of this statute that the test is not that of a statewide standard of health care.\""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "60 N.C. App. 441",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8521714
      ],
      "year": 1983,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "noting that \"[i]t is clear from the wording of this statute that the test is not that of a statewide standard of health care.\""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/60/0441-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "171 S.E.2d 393",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1970,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "397"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "276 N.C. 134",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8560380
      ],
      "year": 1970,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "140"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/276/0134-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "272 S.E.2d 8",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1980,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "10"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "49 N.C. App. 533",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8522594
      ],
      "year": 1980,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "535"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/49/0533-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 90-21.12",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 364,
    "char_count": 5570,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.732,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0404594608541754e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7476908885421505
    },
    "sha256": "7ace78a35bd95c408e7f4784fb2efad4e6269747eaf92836f9561e35aba74383",
    "simhash": "1:359c37975445d9f0",
    "word_count": 880
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:43:16.540119+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges LEWIS and MARTIN, John C., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "YVETTE P. TUCKER and LARRY TUCKER, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. DR. PAUL J. MEIS, and NORTH CAROLINA BAPTIST HOSPITALS, Defendants-Appellees"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "WYNN, Judge.\nPlaintiffs, Yvette P. Tucker and her husband, Larry Tucker, brought this medical malpractice action to recover for an allegedly negligently repaired episiotomy performed on Mrs. Tucker following child birth in Winston-Salem, North Carolina.\nAt trial, plaintiffs presented two expert witnesses: An OB-GYN specialist licensed in Virginia and Tennessee who had been practicing in Tennessee and Mrs. Tucker\u2019s treating psychologist. After finding that plaintiffs failed to present competent medical testimony establishing the standard of care or defendants\u2019 breach thereof, the trial court granted directed verdict in defendants\u2019 favor. Plaintiffs appeal.\nAlthough plaintiffs raise several issues on appeal, only one need be addressed by us: Whether the trial court erred by excluding the testimony of their medical expert as to the standard of care. We answer: No, and therefore affirm the trial court\u2019s order granting directed verdict to defendants.\nPlaintiffs contend that although their medical expert, Dr. Tasker, testified that he was familiar with the standard of care in North Carolina, the trial court improperly sustained objections when counsel asked him to testify as to what that standard was and whether it was breached by defendants. They argue that since the trial court based its directed verdict on plaintiffs\u2019 failure to establish the standard of care and defendants\u2019 breach, this error was prejudicial and warrants a new trial. We disagree.\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 90-21.12 prescribes the relevant standard of care in a medical malpractice action \u2014 \u201cthe standards of practice among members of the same health care profession with similar training and experience situated in the same or similar communities at the time of the alleged act giving rise to the cause of action.\u201d (emphasis added). In Page v. Wilson Memorial Hospital, 49 N.C. App. 533, 535, 272 S.E.2d 8, 10 (1980), we said: \u201cBy adopting the \u2018similar community\u2019 rule in G.S. 90-21.12 it was the intent of the General Assembly to avoid the adoption of a national or regional standard of care for health providers....\u201d\nAfter reviewing Dr. Tasker\u2019s testimony in its entirety, we find that the record indicates he failed to testify in any instance that he was familiar with the standard of care in Winston-Salem or similar communities. Although Dr. Tasker testified that he was familiar with the standard of care in North Carolina, he failed to make the statutorily required connection to the community in which the alleged malpractice took place or to a similarly situated community. Notably, we agree with plaintiffs that the phrasing of the questions used to elicit the standard of care need not follow \u00a7 90-21.12 verbatim; to so require would improperly place form over substance. However, the questions asked must elicit the relevant standard of care as set out in that statute. Moreover, while we recognize that \u201cchanges in the rural-urban population pattern of the country and changes in medical education, training, and communication have led to greater standardization of medical practices,\u201d Wiggins v. Piver, 276 N.C. 134, 140, 171 S.E.2d 393, 397 (1970), N.C.G.S. \u00a7 90-21.12 mandates that the relevant standard of care is that of the community where the injury occurred (or similar communities) and not that of the state as a whole. See Dailey v. North Carolina State Bd. of Dental Exmrs., 60 N.C. App. 441, 299 S.E.2d 473, rev\u2019d on other grounds, 309 N.C. 710, 721, 309 S.E.2d 219, 225 (1983) (noting that \u201c[i]t is clear from the wording of this statute that the test is not that of a statewide standard of health care.\u201d). This community standard allows for consideration of the effect that variations in facilities, equipment, funding, etc., throughout the state might have on the standard of care.\nIn sum, the problem with Dr. Tasker\u2019s testimony was not that he had not practiced in North Carolina; rather, it was his failure to testify that he was familiar with the standard of care in Winston-Salem or similar communities. Without such testimony, Dr. Tasker\u2019s opinion as to a standard of care for the State of North Carolina and whether defendants met that standard was irrelevant. The plain language of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 90-21.12 requires this result; therefore, we must hold that the trial court correctly sustained defendants\u2019 objections to Dr. Tasker\u2019s testimony.\nOur holding makes it unnecessary to address plaintiffs\u2019 remaining issues. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court\u2019s order granting directed verdict for defendants.\nAffirmed.\nJudges LEWIS and MARTIN, John C., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WYNN, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Marsha C. Hughes Grayson for plaintiffs-appellanls.",
      "Wilson & Iseman, L.L.P., by G. Gray Wilson and Tamura D. Coffey, for defendants-appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "YVETTE P. TUCKER and LARRY TUCKER, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. DR. PAUL J. MEIS, and NORTH CAROLINA BAPTIST HOSPITALS, Defendants-Appellees\nNo. COA96-1293\n(Filed 5 August 1997)\nEvidence and Witnesses \u00a7 2250 (NCI4th)\u2014 medical malpractice \u2014 negligence\u2014medical expert \u2014 standard of care\u2014 community\nIn a medical malpractice action, the trial court properly excluded the testimony of plaintiffs medical expert where the expert testified that he was familiar with the standard of care in North Carolina but failed to testify that he was familiar with the standard of care in the community in which the alleged negligence took place or in similar communities as required by N.C.G.S. \u00a7 90-21.12.\nAppeal by plaintiffs from orders entered 16 May and 24 June 1996 by Judge H.W. Zimmerman, Jr. in Iredell County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 22 May 1997.\nMarsha C. Hughes Grayson for plaintiffs-appellanls.\nWilson & Iseman, L.L.P., by G. Gray Wilson and Tamura D. Coffey, for defendants-appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0197-01",
  "first_page_order": 233,
  "last_page_order": 235
}