{
  "id": 9249693,
  "name": "KENNETH H. MYERS, JR., Plaintiff v. THOMAS P. MUTTON, M.D.; FORSYTH MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INC., NOVANT HEALTH, INC.; NOVANT HEALTH TRIAD REGION, LLC, Defendant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Myers v. Mutton",
  "decision_date": "2002-12-31",
  "docket_number": "No. COA01-1409",
  "first_page": "213",
  "last_page": "216",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "155 N.C. App. 213"
    }
  ],
  "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": "558 S.E.2d 215",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2002,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "217"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "148 N.C. App. 261",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        9365367
      ],
      "year": 2002,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "263"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/148/0261-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "225 S.E.2d 797",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1976,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "800"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "290 N.C. 118",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8560682
      ],
      "year": 1976,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "121-222"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/290/0118-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "522 S.E.2d 577",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1999,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "579",
          "parenthetical": "quoting Oestreicher v. American Nat'l Stores, 290 N.C. 118, 121-222, 225 S.E.2d 797, 800 (1976)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "351 N.C. 159",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        1155801
      ],
      "year": 1999,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "162",
          "parenthetical": "quoting Oestreicher v. American Nat'l Stores, 290 N.C. 118, 121-222, 225 S.E.2d 797, 800 (1976)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/351/0159-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "444 S.E.2d 252",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "253"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "115 N.C. App. 377",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        12129791
      ],
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "379"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/115/0377-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "526 S.E.2d 666",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2000,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "137 N.C. App. 138",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11092295
      ],
      "year": 2000,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/137/0138-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "511 S.E.2d 2",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1999,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "4",
          "parenthetical": "citations omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "350 N.C. 71",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        132249
      ],
      "year": 1999,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "73",
          "parenthetical": "citations omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/350/0071-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "520 S.E.2d 785",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1999,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "351 N.C. 94",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        1155667
      ],
      "year": 1999,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/351/0094-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "515 S.E.2d 43",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1999,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "44"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "133 N.C. App. 163",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11217603
      ],
      "year": 1999,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "164"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/133/0163-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "542 S.E.2d 666",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2001,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "667",
          "parenthetical": "quoting Stafford v. Stafford, 133 N.C. App. 163, 164, 515 S.E.2d 43, 44, aff'd per curiam, 351 N.C. 94, 520 S.E.2d 785 (1999)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "142 N.C. App. 328",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        9440999
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2001,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "330",
          "parenthetical": "quoting Stafford v. Stafford, 133 N.C. App. 163, 164, 515 S.E.2d 43, 44, aff'd per curiam, 351 N.C. 94, 520 S.E.2d 785 (1999)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/142/0328-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 476,
    "char_count": 8012,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.762,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.458184642652668e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9216504514355857
    },
    "sha256": "2581c43e69f1fb993ab58e46cead0f3d46b6a4c328eaf9b109e228eecae26ab3",
    "simhash": "1:2b2c46ec51ef8217",
    "word_count": 1253
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:08:10.559314+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges GREENE and WYNN concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "KENNETH H. MYERS, JR., Plaintiff v. THOMAS P. MUTTON, M.D.; FORSYTH MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INC., NOVANT HEALTH, INC.; NOVANT HEALTH TRIAD REGION, LLC, Defendant"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BIGGS, Judge.\nPlaintiff appeals from an order sanctioning him for failure to comply with a discovery order. We dismiss plaintiffs appeal as interlocutory.\nThis appeal arises from a medical malpractice action filed by plaintiff February, 2000, in which he alleged that defendant (Dr. Mutton) was negligent in his treatment of plaintiffs appendicitis. Plaintiff, subsequent to filing suit, dismissed claims against all defendants except Dr. Mutton, the only defendant in the present appeal. In May, 2000, defendant filed his first set of interrogatories. He sought information regarding, inter alia, plaintiff\u2019s expert witnesses, medical records, medication history, employment and tax records, criminal record, the factual basis for certain allegations in the complaint, and an accounting of plaintiffs medical expenses, loss of income, and other alleged damages.\nPlaintiff responded to defendant\u2019s interrogatories in July, 2000. He generally objected on the basis that the interrogatories were overly broad, unduly burdensome, sought privileged or confidential information, and \u201cotherwise exceed[ed] the scope of permissible discovery.\u201d However, plaintiff did not file an objection to any specific request for information, or associate his general objections with any particular request, document, or item of information. Nor has plaintiff filed a motion for a protective order.\nBetween May and September, 2000, plaintiff produced some, but not all, of the requested documents. On 30 September 2000, defendant filed a Motion to Compel discovery, which was granted on 30 October 2000. The trial court ordered plaintiff to fully and completely answer each interrogatory, including subparts, and to produce each document requested by 18 November 2000. In response, plaintiff filed several supplemental answers to defendant\u2019s interrogatories. In each, plaintiff reiterated his general objections to defendant\u2019s interrogatories, while including some additional records.\nIn April, 2001, defendant filed a motion for sanctions under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 37 (2001). On 23 May 2001, the trial court entered an order granting defendant\u2019s motion for sanctions. The court found that, even after the entry of an order compelling discovery, that plaintiff\u2019s supplemental responses had included \u201cprior answers subject to continued objections which had already been overruled!,]\u201d and that defendant had \u201cfailed to fully and completely respond to defendant\u2019s first set of interrogatories and request for production of documents!.]\u201d The trial court also found that despite defendant\u2019s requests, plaintiff and plaintiff\u2019s counsel have chosen not to resubmit plaintiff\u2019s discovery without objections. The court concluded that plaintiff had failed to comply with the order compelling discovery, and failed to \u201cfully and completely answer each interrogatory, including subparts, and completely produce each document requested.\u201d The court ordered that plaintiff comply with the earlier discovery order on or before July 13, 2001, and imposed monetary sanctions on plaintiffs counsel. Plaintiff appeals from this order.\nWe conclude that plaintiffs appeal is not properly before us, notwithstanding the failure of either party to address the issue. \u201cAlthough the interlocutory nature of the instant appeal[] has not been raised by the parties, . . . \u2018[i]f there is no right of appeal, it is the duty of an appellate court to dismiss the appeal on its own motion.\u2019 \u201d Yang v. Three Springs, Inc., 142 N.C. App. 328, 330, 542 S.E.2d 666, 667 (2001) (quoting Stafford v. Stafford, 133 N.C. App. 163, 164, 515 S.E.2d 43, 44, aff\u2019d per curiam, 351 N.C. 94, 520 S.E.2d 785 (1999)).\n\u201cA judgment is either interlocutory or the final determination of the rights of the parties.\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 54 (2001). \u201cInterlocutory orders are those made during the pendency of an action which do not dispose of the case, but instead leave it for further action by the trial court in order to settle and determine the entire controversy.\u201d Carriker v. Carriker, 350 N.C. 71, 73, 511 S.E.2d 2, 4 (1999) (citations omitted). The order for sanctions entered in the case sub judice is interlocutory because it did not finally dispose of the case, which has not yet come to trial. Yang, 142 N.C. App. 328, 542 S.E.2d 666.\nAlthough there is generally no right to appeal an interlocutory order, it is immediately appealable if (1) the order is final as to some claims or parties, and the trial court certifies pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 54(b) that there is no just reason to delay the appeal, or (2) the order deprives the appellant of a substantial right that would be lost unless immediately reviewed. Turner v. Norfolk S. Corp., 137 N.C. App. 138, 526 S.E.2d 666 (2000). \u201cUnder either of these two circumstances, it is the appellant\u2019s burden to present appropriate grounds for this Court\u2019s acceptance of an interlocutory appealf.]\u201d Jeffreys v. Raleigh Oaks Joint Venture, 115 N.C. App. 377, 379, 444 S.E.2d 252, 253 (1994). Moreover, under N.C.R. App. P. 28(b)(4), an appellant\u2019s brief must contain \u201ca statement of the grounds for appellate review\u201d and if the appeal is interlocutory, this statement \u201cmust contain sufficient facts and argument to support appellate review on the ground that the challenged order affects a substantial right.\u201d\nIn the present case, the trial court did not certify the order for sanctions under Rule 54(b), nor do we conclude that a substantial right will be lost if the order is not immediately appealed. A \u2018substantial right\u2019 is \u201ca legal right affecting or involving a matter of substance as distinguished from matters of form: a right materially affecting those interests which a [person] is entitled to have preserved and protected by law: a material right.\u201d Sharpe v. Worland, 351 N.C. 159, 162, 522 S.E.2d 577, 579 (1999) (quoting Oestreicher v. American Nat'l Stores, 290 N.C. 118, 121-222, 225 S.E.2d 797, 800 (1976)). \u201cGenerally, appellate courts do not review discovery orders because of their interlocutory nature.\u201d Stevenson v. Joyner, 148 N.C. App. 261, 263, 558 S.E.2d 215, 217 (2002).\nWe hold that no substantial right of plaintiff\u2019s would be jeopardized by postponing appeal of the discovery order until after trial. Accordingly, plaintiff\u2019s appeal must be dismissed.\nDismissed.\nJudges GREENE and WYNN concur.\n. Plaintiff\u2019s notice of appeal includes the general statement that \u201c[t]he order which is the subject of this appeal, is immediately appealable given the issues raised therein.\u201d However, that perfunctory allegation constitutes the entirety of plaintiff\u2019s attention to this issue. Plaintiff failed to include in his brief a statement of the grounds for appeal. He has not asserted a statutory privilege, has not argued that a substantial right is affected, and has never filed a motion for a protective order to prevent discovery of specific documents.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BIGGS, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Faison & Gillespie, by Reginald B. Gillespie, Jr., C. Michael Mallard, and Kristen L. Beightol, for plaintiff-appellant.",
      "Carruthers & Roth, P.A., by Richard L. Vanore and Norman F. Klick, Jr., for defendant-appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "KENNETH H. MYERS, JR., Plaintiff v. THOMAS P. MUTTON, M.D.; FORSYTH MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INC., NOVANT HEALTH, INC.; NOVANT HEALTH TRIAD REGION, LLC, Defendant\nNo. COA01-1409\n(Filed 31 December 2002)\nAppeal and Error\u2014 appealability \u2014 interlocutory order \u2014 sanction for failure to comply with discovery order\nPlaintiffs appeal in a medical malpractice action from an order sanctioning him for failure to comply with a discovery order is dismissed as an appeal from an interlocutory order, because: (1) the order for sanctions did not dispose of the case which has not yet come to trial; (2) the trial court did not certify the order for sanctions under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 54(b); and (3) a substantial right will not be lost if the order is not immediately appealed.\nAppeal by plaintiff from order entered 23 May 2001 by Judge Michael E. Helms in Forsyth County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 17 September 2002.\nFaison & Gillespie, by Reginald B. Gillespie, Jr., C. Michael Mallard, and Kristen L. Beightol, for plaintiff-appellant.\nCarruthers & Roth, P.A., by Richard L. Vanore and Norman F. Klick, Jr., for defendant-appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0213-01",
  "first_page_order": 243,
  "last_page_order": 246
}