{ "id": 8301140, "name": "KELLY CHAMBLISS AND CAROLINE CHAMBLISS, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. HEALTH SCIENCES FOUNDATION, INC., d/b/a COASTAL AREA HEALTH EDUCATION CENTER, d/b/a WOMEN'S HEALTH SPECIALTIES-NORTH, and JULIE RAMSEY, RNC, NP, Defendants-Appellants", "name_abbreviation": "Chambliss v. Health Sciences Foundation, Inc.", "decision_date": "2006-03-07", "docket_number": "No. COA04-1687", "first_page": "388", "last_page": "395", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "176 N.C. App. 388" } ], "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": "612 S.E.2d 438", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12632831 ], "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "434", "parenthetical": "citing Burgess v. Vestal, 99 N.C. App. 545, 550, 393 S.E.2d 324, 327 (1990)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/612/0438-01" ] }, { "cite": "620 S.E.2d 10", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12634070 ], "weight": 3, "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "12", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" }, { "page": "13" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/620/0010-01" ] }, { "cite": "290 S.E.2d 599", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "605" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "305 N.C. 478", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8571152 ], "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "487" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/305/0478-01" ] }, { "cite": "393 S.E.2d 324", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "327" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "99 N.C. App. 545", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8523937 ], "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "550" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/99/0545-01" ] }, { "cite": "170 N.C. App. 346", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9005332 ], "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "353", "parenthetical": "citing Burgess v. Vestal, 99 N.C. App. 545, 550, 393 S.E.2d 324, 327 (1990)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/170/0346-01" ] }, { "cite": "339 S.E.2d 441", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "444" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "79 N.C. App. 431", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8521228 ], "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "434" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/79/0431-01" ] }, { "cite": "525 S.E.2d 481", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "484", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" }, { "parenthetical": "citation and internal quotation marks omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "136 N.C. App. 587", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11241064 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "591", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" }, { "page": "591-92" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/136/0587-01" ] }, { "cite": "539 S.E.2d 313", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "318" }, { "parenthetical": "citation and internal quotation marks omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "141 N.C. App. 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9439355 ], "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "9-10" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/141/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "173 N.C. App. 614", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8354143 ], "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "617", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/173/0614-01" ] }, { "cite": "476 S.E.2d 467", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "470", "parenthetical": "emphasis added" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "124 N.C. App. 170", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11888948 ], "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "173", "parenthetical": "emphasis added" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/124/0170-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 728, "char_count": 17686, "ocr_confidence": 0.747, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.091489473597207e-07, "percentile": 0.7604476168301704 }, "sha256": "20764a06f7a5b60af52ab87ebbf16410a3320b78e6b5ce22f6b5a66326cb6c86", "simhash": "1:af23c262fb0e8138", "word_count": 2752 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:09:49.892129+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges HUDSON and LEVINSON concur." ], "parties": [ "KELLY CHAMBLISS AND CAROLINE CHAMBLISS, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. HEALTH SCIENCES FOUNDATION, INC., d/b/a COASTAL AREA HEALTH EDUCATION CENTER, d/b/a WOMEN\u2019S HEALTH SPECIALTIES\u2014NORTH, and JULIE RAMSEY, RNC, NP, Defendants-Appellants" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "CALABRIA, Judge.\nHealth Sciences Foundation, Inc. (\u201cFoundation\u201d), Coastal Area Health Education Center (\u201cCoastal\u201d), Women\u2019s Health Specialties-North (\u201cSpecialties\u201d), and Julie Ramsey (\u201cRamsey\u201d) (collectively known as \u201cappellants\u201d) appeal the 24 August 2004 judgment in favor of Kelly Chambliss (\u201cKelly\u201d) and Caroline Chambliss (\u201cCaroline\u201d) (collectively known as \u201cappellees\u201d) for injuries resulting from an unwashed sperm specimen in an insemination procedure). We affirm in part and find no error in part.\nAppellees Kelly and Caroline Chambliss, both female, are life partners. Appellees desired to raise a family and concluded their best option was artificial insemination. Appellees looked to appellants Coastal and Ramsey, as well as Dr. Mark M. Pasquarette (\u201cDr. Pasquarette\u201d), leader of a reproductive endocrinology and fertility practice, for assistance. Appellees decided Kelly would undergo monthly intrauterine insemination procedures whereby Caroline would inject the sample sperm into Kelly\u2019s uterus. Appellees obtained, with the help of Dr. Pasquarette, \u201cpre-washed\u201d donor sperm from an accredited sperm bank in California. Non-\u201cpre-washed\u201d sperm had to be placed into a Sperm Select kit for cleansing while \u201cpre-washed\u201d sperm generally did not require such treatment. Once clean, the \u201cwashed\u201d sperm remains in the Sperm Select syringe for the eventual insemination procedure). A Sperm Select syringe, which has the non-\u201cpre-washed\u201d sperm, looks completely different than the type of syringe used for \u201cpre-washed\u201d specimens, like those of appellees, that come from sperm banks.\nAppellees attempted, unsuccessfully, to get pregnant eleven times prior to arriving at appellants\u2019 facility on 26 August 2002 for their twelfth insemination procedure. On each prior occasion, appellees used the donor sperm from California in the insemination procedures. Two days earlier, 24 August 2002, Karen Hale (\u201cHale\u201d), a registered nurse who worked at appellants\u2019 facility, prepared a sperm specimen for another patient. Hale and another registered nurse at the appellants\u2019 facility, Debbie Cushing (\u201cCushing\u201d), along with Ramsey, were the only three nurses authorized to prepare specimens for artificial insemination procedures. Hale did the following in preparation for the 24 August 2002 procedure: drew a portion of the sperm into a Sperm Select syringe and cleaned it (the sperm used was not pre-washed); drew up a smaller sample of the now cleaned sperm into a second Sperm Select syringe for insemination; transferred a smaller portion of the cleaned sperm from this second syringe into a catheter for actual use; drew up the surplus, unwashed sperm into the second syringe and placed it in the incubator. This unwashed sperm specimen remained in the incubator in the syringe over the weekend.\nThe policies and procedures in place at appellants\u2019 facility for preparing a sperm specimen for insemination included confirming the donor number with the patient, matching the donor number in a log book, logging the donor sperm out of the sperm freezer, having two individuals initial this process, labeling the specimen, showing the vial of sperm to the patient and reconfirming the donor number, checking the specimen under a microscope and charting this process in the patient\u2019s medical chart. The intent of these policies and procedures was to protect patient safety and maximize patient health.\nOn 26 August 2002 Ramsey used the remainder 24 August 2002 unwashed sperm specimen from the incubator in the insemination procedure with Kelly and not Kelly\u2019s \u201cpre-washed\u201d donor sperm. The unwashed sperm specimen used by Ramsey was in the same unlabeled Sperm Select syringe. Kelly became violently ill almost immediately. Two days later on 28 August 2002 both Hale and Ramsey recognized the wrong sperm specimen was used in the insemination procedure. Ramsey and Dr. Pasquarette informed appellees of this error immediately. None of the policies and procedures in effect at appellants\u2019 facility to prepare a sperm specimen for insemination and protect patient health and safety were performed on 26 August 2002.\nAppellees filed suit against appellants on 21 March 2003 seeking both compensatory and punitive damages. After a week long trial (21 June 2004 to 28 June 2004), the jury awarded appellees both compensatory and punitive damages. The trial court entered judgment in favor of appellees on 24 August 2004. On 1 September 2004 the trial court entered an order denying both appellants\u2019 motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and motion for a new trial as well as affirming a finding that the punitive damages award was in accordance with N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7\u00a7 ID-1 and ID-35. Appellants appealed from the judgment and orders on 22 September 2004.\nI. Judgment on the Pleadings:\nAppellants argue in their first assignment of error the trial court erred in denying their motion for a judgment on the pleadings. Appellants contend the complaint contains no allegations which, as a matter of law, would constitute evidence sufficient to support an award of punitive damages. This Court has held \u201c[a] trial court\u2019s denial of . . . defendants\u2019 motion[] for . . . judgment on the pleadings is not reviewable on appeal because the trial court rendered a final judgment after a trial on the merits.\u201d Wilson v. Sutton, 124 N.C. App. 170, 173, 476 S.E.2d 467, 470 (1996) (emphasis added).\nIn the instant case, the trial court rendered a final judgment after a trial on the merits.'Thus, we reject appellants\u2019 assertion it is reviewable here. This assignment of error is overruled.\nII. Directed Verdict:\nAppellants next argue the trial court erred in denying their directed verdict motion at the close of appellees\u2019 evidence and at the close of all the evidence. The appellants contend the evidence presented was insufficient to support an award of punitive damages. We disagree.\nFirst, appellants waived their initial directed verdict motion at the close of appellees\u2019 evidence by presenting evidence. \u201cBy offering evidence ... a defendant waives its motion for directed verdict made at the close of plaintiff\u2019s evidence.\u201d Boggess v. Spencer, 173 N.C. App. 614, 617, 620 S.E.2d 10, 12 (2005) (citation omitted). Second, regarding appellants\u2019 renewal of their directed verdict motion at the close of all the evidence, \u201c[i]n deciding whether to grant or deny a motion for directed verdict, \u2018the trial court must accept the non-movant\u2019s evidence as true and view all the evidence in the light most favorable to him.\u2019 \u201d Id., 620 S.E.2d at 13 (quoting Williamson v. Liptzin, 141 N.C. App. 1, 9-10, 539 S.E.2d 313, 318 (2000)). Further, \u201c[t]he trial court should deny the motion if there is more than a scintilla of evidence supporting each element of the non-movant\u2019s claim.\u201d Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). \u201cThe standard of review of a denial of a motion for directed verdict is whether the evidence, considered in a light most favorable to the non-moving party, is sufficient to be submitted to the jury.\u201d Id.\nIn the instant case, a thorough review of the record and trial transcripts and testimony illustrates sufficient evidence existed to support submitting the question of punitive damages to the jury and consequently, to deny appellants\u2019 renewed directed verdict motion. In fact, appellant Ramsey admitted that though she was aware of the safety protocol in place at appellant Coastal, she violated that protocol in several ways including failing to examine the sperm specimen under a microscope prior to insemination. This evidence alone qualifies as more than a scintilla of evidence regarding whether to submit the question of punitive damages to the jury. This assignment of error is overruled.\nIII. Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict:\nAppellants next argue the trial court erred in denying their motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (\u201cjnov\u201d). Appellants contend the evidence presented was insufficient to support an award of punitive damages. We disagree.\nAppellants failed to assign error to any of the trial court\u2019s findings of fact or conclusions of law. \u201cWhere findings of fact are challenged on appeal, each contested finding of fact must be separately assigned as error, and the failure to do so results in a waiver of the right to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence.\u201d Okwara v. Dillard Dep\u2019t Stores, Inc., 136 N.C. App. 587, 591, 525 S.E.2d 481, 484 (2000) (citations omitted) (emphasis added). Thus, \u201c[w]here an appellant fails to assign error to the trial court\u2019s findings of fact, the findings are presumed to be correct.\u201d Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Consequently, \u201cour review ... is limited to the question of whether the trial court\u2019s findings of fact, which are presumed to be supported by competent evidence, support its conclusion of law and judgment.\u201d Id., 136 N.C. App. at 591-92. In its 1 September 2004 order denying appellants\u2019 jnov motion, the trial court\u2019s finding of fact number seven states, in pertinent part, \u201c[v]iewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the [pjlaintiff, and resolving all inferences from the evidence in her favor . . . there was sufficient evidence for the iurv to determine that Defendant Ramsey acted willfully and wantonly, i.e. with reckless indifference to the safety of her patient, when she knowingly, consciously and deliberately used an unlabeled syringe containing an unknown substance in [p]laintiff\u2019s insemination procedure . . . knowing that to do so would expose the [p]laintiff to a risk of harm.\u201d Therefore, finding of fact number seven supports conclusion of law number one, \u201cthere was sufficient evidence to submit the issue of punitive damages to the jury,\u201d and consequently, appellants\u2019 jnov motion was properly denied. This assignment of error is overruled.\nIV. Punitive Damages:\nAppellants next argue the trial court improperly denied their request pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 ID-50 to set aside or reduce the punitive damages award as there was insufficient evidence in the record. We disagree.\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 ID-50 states:\nWhen reviewing the evidence regarding a finding by the trier of fact concerning liability for punitive damages in accordance with G.S. 1D-I5(a), or regarding the amount of punitive damages awarded, the trial court shall state in a written opinion its reasons for upholding or disturbing the finding or award. In doing so, the court shall address with specificity the evidence, or lack thereof, as it bears on the liability for or the amount of punitive damages, in light of the requirements of this Chapter.\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 ID-50 (2005) (emphasis added). The trial court outlined, in exhaustive fashion, both the findings of fact and conclusions of law upon which the determination of punitive damages was predicated. Furthermore, since appellants failed to assign error to the pertinent findings and conclusions, they are conclusive on appeal. The trial court complied with the dictates of the statute in explaining in detail why punitive damages were justified in the instant case and why such an award was appropriate and not excessive. Thus, we hold the trial court committed no error in denying appellants\u2019 request pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 ID-50.\nV. New Trial:\nAppellants next assign error to the trial court\u2019s denial of their motion for a new trial. \u201cAn appellate court\u2019s review of a trial judge\u2019s discretionary ruling denying a motion to set aside a verdict and order a new trial is limited to a determination of whether the record clearly demonstrates a manifest abuse of discretion by the trial judge.\u201d Pittman v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 79 N.C. App. 431, 434, 339 S.E.2d 441, 444 (1986). \u201cDuring review, we accord \u2018great faith and confidence in the ability of our trial judges to make the right decision, fairly and without partiality, regarding the necessity for new trial.\u2019 \u201d City of Charlotte v. Ertel, 170 N.C. App. 346, 353, 612 S.E.2d 438, 434 (2005) (citing Burgess v. Vestal, 99 N.C. App. 545, 550, 393 S.E.2d 324, 327 (1990)) (quoting Worthington v. Bynum, 305 N.C. 478, 487, 290 S.E.2d 599, 605 (1982)).\nIn its 1 September 2004 order denying appellants\u2019 new trial motion, the trial court reviewed the evidence, including transcripts of jury instructions and trial testimony, and determined no grounds existed to support appellants\u2019 motion. We conclude the trial court acted within its discretion. This assignment of error is overruled.\nAffirmed in part; no error in part.\nJudges HUDSON and LEVINSON concur.\n. Dr. Pasquarette\u2019s practice operates within Specialties which, as part of Coastal, provides educational and clinical services in the areas of obstetric and gynecological care. Coastal maintains and operates several health care facilities including Specialties. Foundation, a non-profit corporation, is the administrator of Coastal. Dr. Pasquarette supervised Ramsey, a reproductive endocrinology and fertility nurse at Specialties.\n. Intrauterine insemination is a form of artificial insemination where a \u201cwashed\u201d sperm sample is inserted into the women\u2019s uterus via a catheter.\n. Pre-washed sperm, already cleansed, need merely be stored before insemination, while non pre-washed sperm had to be cleansed by the. appellants prior to use in insemination procedures.", "type": "majority", "author": "CALABRIA, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Shipman & Wright, L.L.P., by Gary K. Shipman and William G. Wright for plaintiffs-appellees.", "Cranfill, Sumner & Hartzog, L.L.P., by Edward G. LeCarpentier, III, John D. Martin, Colleen Shea Collis and Meredith T. Black for defendants-appellants.", "Comerford & Britt, L.L.P., by Clifford Britt; and Holly M. Bryan, for The North Carolina Academy of Trial Lawyers, ami-cus curiae.", "Smith, Anderson, Blount, Dorsett, Mitchell & Jemigan, L.L.P., by Robin K. Vinson, for The North Carolina Medical Society, amicus curiae." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "KELLY CHAMBLISS AND CAROLINE CHAMBLISS, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. HEALTH SCIENCES FOUNDATION, INC., d/b/a COASTAL AREA HEALTH EDUCATION CENTER, d/b/a WOMEN\u2019S HEALTH SPECIALTIES\u2014NORTH, and JULIE RAMSEY, RNC, NP, Defendants-Appellants\nNo. COA04-1687\n(Filed 7 March 2006)\n1. Appeal and Error\u2014 appealability \u2014 denial of motion for judgment on pleadings not reviewable\nAlthough defendant-appellants contend the trial court erred in a suit seeking compensatory and punitive damages, as a result of injuries resulting from unwashed sperm specimen in an insemination procedure, by denying defendant-appellants\u2019 motion for judgment on the pleadings, this issue is not reviewable on appeal because the. trial court rendered a final judgment after a trial on the merits.\n2. Damages and Remedies\u2014 punitive damages \u2014 motion for directed verdict \u2014 unwashed sperm specimen in insemination procedure\nThe trial court did not err in a suit seeking damages as a result of injuries resulting from an unwashed sperm specimen in an insemination procedure by denying defendant-appellants\u2019 directed verdict motion at the close of all evidence on the issue of punitive damages because appellant nurse admitted that though she was aware of the safety protocol in place at appellant health center, she violated that protocol in several ways including failing to examine the sperm specimen under a microscope prior to insemination, which evidence alone constituted more than a scintilla of evidence regarding whether to submit the question of punitive damages to the jury.\n3. Damages and Remedies\u2014 punitive damages \u2014 motion for judgment notwithstanding verdict \u2014 unwashed sperm specimen in insemination procedure\nThe trial court did not err in a suit seeking damages as a result of injuries resulting from an unwashed sperm specimen in an insemination procedure by denying defendant-appellants\u2019 motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the issue of punitive damages because: (1) appellants failed to assign error to any of the trial court\u2019s findings of fact or conclusions of law, and the failure to do so resulted in a waiver of the right to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence; and (2) finding of fact number seven provided sufficient evidence for the jury to determine that appellant nurse acted willfully and wantonly with reckless indifference to the safety of her patient when she knowingly, consciously, and deliberately used an unlabeled syringe containing an unknown substance in plaintiff\u2019s insemination procedure knowing that to do so would expose plaintiff to a risk of harm.\n4. Damages and Remedies\u2014 punitive damages \u2014 motion to reduce or set aside award\nThe trial court did not err in a suit seeking damages as a result of injuries resulting from an unwashed sperm specimen in an insemination procedure by denying defendant-appellants\u2019 request under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 ID-50 to set aside or reduce the punitive damages award because: (1) the trial court outlined both the findings of fact and conclusions of law upon which the determination of punitive damages was predicated; (2) since appellants failed to assign error to the pertinent findings and conclusions, they are binding on appeal; and (3) the trial court complied with the dictates of the statute by explaining in detail why punitive damages were, justified in the instant case and why such an award was appropriate and not excessive.\n5. Damages and Remedies\u2014 punitive damages \u2014 motion for new trial\nThe trial court did not err in a suit seeking damages as a result of injuries resulting from unwashed sperm specimen in an insemination procedure by denying defendant-appellants\u2019 motion for a new trial, because the trial court acted within its discretion.\nAppeal by defendants from judgment entered 24 August 2004 by Judge W. Allen Cobb, Jr., in New Hanover County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 13 September 2005.\nShipman & Wright, L.L.P., by Gary K. Shipman and William G. Wright for plaintiffs-appellees.\nCranfill, Sumner & Hartzog, L.L.P., by Edward G. LeCarpentier, III, John D. Martin, Colleen Shea Collis and Meredith T. Black for defendants-appellants.\nComerford & Britt, L.L.P., by Clifford Britt; and Holly M. Bryan, for The North Carolina Academy of Trial Lawyers, ami-cus curiae.\nSmith, Anderson, Blount, Dorsett, Mitchell & Jemigan, L.L.P., by Robin K. Vinson, for The North Carolina Medical Society, amicus curiae." }, "file_name": "0388-01", "first_page_order": 420, "last_page_order": 427 }