{
  "id": 9381783,
  "name": "MELISSA RENEE JENKINS, Plaintiff v. HAN PYO CHOONG, M.D. and ALEXANDER COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, INC., Defendants",
  "name_abbreviation": "Jenkins v. Han Pyo Choong",
  "decision_date": "2001-12-18",
  "docket_number": "No. COA01-175",
  "first_page": "780",
  "last_page": "782",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "147 N.C. App. 780"
    }
  ],
  "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": "533 S.E.2d 483",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2000,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "denial of defendant-hospital's motion seeking permission to contact non-party physician, who allegedly caused the plaintiff's injury, did not implicate substantial right of the hospital because the hospital could gather evidence through formal discovery"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "139 N.C. App. 409",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        9496862
      ],
      "year": 2000,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "denial of defendant-hospital's motion seeking permission to contact non-party physician, who allegedly caused the plaintiff's injury, did not implicate substantial right of the hospital because the hospital could gather evidence through formal discovery"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/139/0409-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "321 S.E.2d 240",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1984,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "249"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "70 N.C. App. 627",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8524317
      ],
      "year": 1984,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "640"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/70/0627-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "507 S.E.2d 56",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1998,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "61",
          "parenthetical": "quoting Estrada v. Jaques, 70 N.C. App. 627, 640, 321 S.E.2d 240, 249 (1984)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "131 N.C. App. 242",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11198692
      ],
      "year": 1998,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "247",
          "parenthetical": "quoting Estrada v. Jaques, 70 N.C. App. 627, 640, 321 S.E.2d 240, 249 (1984)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/131/0242-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "522 S.E.2d 577",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1999,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "579",
          "parenthetical": "citation omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "351 N.C. 159",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        1155801
      ],
      "year": 1999,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "162-63",
          "parenthetical": "citation omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/351/0159-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "406 S.E.2d 848",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1991,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "850",
          "parenthetical": "citation omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "329 N.C. 488",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2557153
      ],
      "year": 1991,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "491",
          "parenthetical": "citation omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/329/0488-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1-277",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "(a)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "511 S.E.2d 27",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1999,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "citing N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1-277(a); N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7A-27"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "132 N.C. App. 229",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11237423
      ],
      "year": 1999,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "citing N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1-277(a); N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7A-27"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/132/0229-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "389 S.E.2d 41",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1990,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "326 N.C. 326",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        5308491
      ],
      "year": 1990,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/326/0326-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 357,
    "char_count": 4904,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.751,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0446031217563963e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7484451796224413
    },
    "sha256": "c0c7e7f63b1d9513aed608fd85cd5ee66fea054b248b7263f58eb5afa9f807e7",
    "simhash": "1:098c81ef6ce66f72",
    "word_count": 766
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:07:10.251034+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "EAGLES, C.J., MARTIN, and BIGGS, JJ."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "MELISSA RENEE JENKINS, Plaintiff v. HAN PYO CHOONG, M.D. and ALEXANDER COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, INC., Defendants"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER CURIAM.\nPlaintiff appeals from the trial court\u2019s order denying plaintiffs motion for sanctions against counsel for Han Pyo Choong, M.D. (hereinafter \u201cdefendant\u201d). Plaintiff claims that defendant\u2019s counsel, Elizabeth McConnell, violated the Rules of Professional Conduct and case law prohibiting ex parte communication between an attorney and a non-party treating physician by mailing a letter complete with attachments to one of plaintiffs physicians prior to his deposition. The trial court denied plaintiffs request for sanctions, concluding as a matter of law that defense counsel violated neither the North Carolina Supreme Court\u2019s holding in Crist v. Moffatt, 326 N.C. 326, 389 S.E.2d 41 (1990), nor Ethics op. RPC 162, which prohibits communication \u201cwith the opposing party\u2019s nonparty treating physician about the physician\u2019s treatment of the opposing party unless the opposing party consents.\u201d The trial court certified the order for appellate review pursuant to G.S. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 54(b).\nA litigant is entitled to appeal either from a final judgment or from an interlocutory order which affects a substantial right. Hart v. F.N. Thompson Const. Co., 132 N.C. App. 229, 511 S.E.2d 27 (1999) (citing N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1-277(a); N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7A-27). An interlocutory order affects a substantial right when the order \u201cdeprive[s] the appealing party of a substantial right which will be lost if the order is not reviewed before a final judgment is entered.\u201d Cook v. Bankers Life & Cas. Co., 329 N.C. 488, 491, 406 S.E.2d 848, 850 (1991) (citation omitted). Our Supreme Court has held that it is typically necessary to determine whether a substantial right is affected on a case by case basis \u201c \u2018by considering the particular facts of that case and the procedural context in which the order from which appeal is sought was entered.\u2019 \u201d Sharpe v. Worland, 351 N.C. 159, 162-63, 522 S.E.2d 577, 579 (1999) (citation omitted). Although a trial court may certify the issues for immediate review pursuant to G.S. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 54(b) and G.S. \u00a7 1-277, this certification does not bind the appellate court because \u201c \u2018ruling on the interlocutory nature of appeals is properly a matter for the appellate division, not the trial court.\u2019 \u201d First Atlantic Management Corp. v. Dunlea Realty Co., 131 N.C. App. 242, 247, 507 S.E.2d 56, 61 (1998) (quoting Estrada v. Jaques, 70 N.C. App. 627, 640, 321 S.E.2d 240, 249 (1984)).\nAs a general rule, discovery orders do not affect a substantial right and are not immediately appealable. See Norris v. Sattler, 139 N.C. App. 409, 533 S.E.2d 483 (2000) (denial of defendant-hospital\u2019s motion seeking permission to contact non-party physician, who allegedly caused the plaintiff\u2019s injury, did not implicate substantial right of the hospital because the hospital could gather evidence through formal discovery). Although North Carolina\u2019s appellate courts have permitted review of discovery orders when a substantial right is affected, no North Carolina court has allowed review of the denial of a motion for sanctions for an alleged violation of the rules against ex parte communications on the grounds that a substantial right is affected. The trial court\u2019s order denying plaintiffs motion for sanctions does not implicate a substantial right of plaintiff which will be lost if this particular case moves forward to a final judgment.\nAppeal dismissed.\nPanel consisting of:\nEAGLES, C.J., MARTIN, and BIGGS, JJ.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER CURIAM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Twiggs, Abrams, Strickland & Rabenau, RA., by Howard F. Twiggs, Donald R. Strickland, and JeffE. Essen; and Richard S. Hunter, Jr., for plaintiff-appellant.",
      "Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, P.L.L.C., by James P. Cooney III; and Northup & McConnell, P.L.L.C., by Isaac N. Northup, Jr., and Elizabeth E. McConnell, for defendant-appellee Choong.",
      "Roberts & Stevens, by Jacqueline Grant and Jim Williams, for defendant-appellee Alexander Community Hospital, Inc.",
      "Kuniholm Law Firm, by Elizabeth F. Kuniholm, for North Carolina Academy of Trial Lawyers, amicus curiae.",
      "Carruthers & Roth, P.A., by Richard L. Vanore and Norman F. Klick, Jr., for North Carolina Association of Defense Attorneys, amicus curiae."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "MELISSA RENEE JENKINS, Plaintiff v. HAN PYO CHOONG, M.D. and ALEXANDER COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, INC., Defendants\nNo. COA01-175\n(Filed 18 December 2001)\nAppeal and Error\u2014 appealability \u2014 denial of motion for Rule 11 sanctions\nAn appeal was dismissed as interlocutory, despite certification pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 54(b), where plaintiff sought to appeal from the denial of Rule 11 sanctions. The denial of the motion for sanctions does not implicate a substantial right which will be lost if this particular case moves forward to a final judgment.\nAppeal by plaintiff from order entered 2 November 2000, and amended 22 November 2000, by Judge William Erwin Spainhour in Alexander County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 5 November 2001.\nTwiggs, Abrams, Strickland & Rabenau, RA., by Howard F. Twiggs, Donald R. Strickland, and JeffE. Essen; and Richard S. Hunter, Jr., for plaintiff-appellant.\nWomble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, P.L.L.C., by James P. Cooney III; and Northup & McConnell, P.L.L.C., by Isaac N. Northup, Jr., and Elizabeth E. McConnell, for defendant-appellee Choong.\nRoberts & Stevens, by Jacqueline Grant and Jim Williams, for defendant-appellee Alexander Community Hospital, Inc.\nKuniholm Law Firm, by Elizabeth F. Kuniholm, for North Carolina Academy of Trial Lawyers, amicus curiae.\nCarruthers & Roth, P.A., by Richard L. Vanore and Norman F. Klick, Jr., for North Carolina Association of Defense Attorneys, amicus curiae."
  },
  "file_name": "0780-01",
  "first_page_order": 810,
  "last_page_order": 812
}