{ "id": 8373867, "name": "MARGARET JONES REID, in the matter of the Estate of WILLIAM REID, JR., Plaintiff v. JACK C. COLE, D.O., CHRISTIAN MANN, M.D., CLIFFORD W. LINDSEY, M.D., CAROLINA PHYSICIANS, P.A., PITT MEMORIAL HOSPITAL FOUNDATION, INC., AND PITT COUNTY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL INC., Defendants", "name_abbreviation": "Reid v. Cole", "decision_date": "2007-11-20", "docket_number": "No. COA07-265", "first_page": "299", "last_page": "302", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "187 N.C. App. 299" } ], "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": "652 S.E.2d 718", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12639754 ], "year": 2007, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/652/0718-01" ] }, { "cite": "187 N.C. App. 261", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8373542 ], "year": 2007, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/187/0261-01" ] }, { "cite": "541 S.E.2d 157", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "161" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "141 N.C. App. 569", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9442338 ], "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "574" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/141/0569-01" ] }, { "cite": "565 S.E.2d 103", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "107" }, { "page": "107" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "151 N.C. App. 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9079021 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "7" }, { "page": "7" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/151/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "480 S.E.2d 661", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "663" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "345 N.C. 480", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 53948 ], "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "482" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/345/0480-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1-277", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "year": 2005, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "315 S.E.2d 789", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "68 N.C. App. 754", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8527947 ], "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/68/0754-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 351, "char_count": 7084, "ocr_confidence": 0.764, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.2031869425591994 }, "sha256": "637db1338ae8b6fca497435b12ab40e770ae7cd8f91c50786f82b532a5921372", "simhash": "1:2f2b9646936e8ce4", "word_count": 1144 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:19:56.575920+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judge WYNN concurs.", "Judge JACKSON dissents in a separate opinion." ], "parties": [ "MARGARET JONES REID, in the matter of the Estate of WILLIAM REID, JR., Plaintiff v. JACK C. COLE, D.O., CHRISTIAN MANN, M.D., CLIFFORD W. LINDSEY, M.D., CAROLINA PHYSICIANS, P.A., PITT MEMORIAL HOSPITAL FOUNDATION, INC., AND PITT COUNTY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL INC., Defendants" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "HUNTER, Judge.\nJack C. Cole, D.O., and Carolina Physicians, P.A. (\u201cdefendants\u201d), appeal the denial of their motion to dismiss the complaint signed by Margaret Jones Reid (\u201cplaintiff\u2019), for the unauthorized practice of law. After careful consideration, we affirm the ruling of the trial court.\nWilliam Reid, Jr. (\u201cMr. Reid\u201d), plaintiff\u2019s husband, died 25 February 2004 at Pitt County Memorial Hospital. Plaintiff was appointed the administrator of his estate (\u201cthe estate\u201d). She retained counsel to pursue a claim of wrongful death against defendants on behalf of the estate. Approximately one month prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations on the wrongful death claim, plaintiffs attorney relocated and withdrew from representation. Thereafter, plaintiff filed a pro se complaint against defendants alleging that they were negligent in the wrongful death of Mr. Reid.\nDefendants in this case, filed an answer and moved the trial court to dismiss plaintiff\u2019s complaint pursuant to N.C.R. Civ. P. 12 and, after an amendment, alleged that the complaint was barred by the statute of limitations. Defendants, however, waived hearing on their motion to dismiss, relying instead on co-defendants\u2019 motions in the companion case that plaintiffs complaint was a legal nullity. Plaintiff opposed the motions, arguing that any defect in her complaint was cured by the subsequent appearance of counsel, based on this Court\u2019s ruling in Theil v. Detering, 68 N.C. App. 754, 315 S.E.2d 789 (1984). The trial court denied defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss on 30 November 2006. In its order, the trial court also certified the matter for immediate appeal pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1-277 (2005) and N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 54(b) (2005), stating that \u201cthere is no justifiable reason for delay\u201d and certified the order as immediately appealable to this Court. Defendants appeal this denial.\nI.\nBefore turning to the merits of the case, plaintiffs have motioned this Court to dismiss the appeal, arguing that: (1) the notice of appeal was not timely filed; and (2) the order is interlocutory and thus not immediately appealable. For the following reasons, the motion is denied.\nEven assuming that the notice of appeal was not timely filed, defendants have petitioned this Court for a writ of certiorari. This Court has the authority to review the merits of an appeal by certio-rari even if notice of appeal was not timely filed. Anderson v. Hollifield, 345 N.C. 480, 482, 480 S.E.2d 661, 663 (1997); see also N.C.R. App. P. 21(a)(1) (either appellate court may grant writ of cer-tiorari and hear an appeal even though the action was not timely filed). Moreover, this Court also has the authority to grant a writ of certiorari to an interlocutory appeal that does not affect a substantial right and hear the merits of the case. Staton v. Russell, 151 N.C. App. 1, 7, 565 S.E.2d 103, 107 (2002); see also Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Consol. v. Durham Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 141 N.C. App. 569, 574, 541 S.E.2d 157, 161 (2000). In this case, we have elected in our discretion to grant defendants\u2019 petition for writ of certiorari and to address the merits of the appeal. The grant of certiorari is particularly appropriate here, where defendants\u2019 notice of appeal was filed less than a week late and the administration of justice will best be served by granting defendants\u2019 petition. See Staton, 151 N.C. App. at 7, 565 S.E.2d at 107. Plaintiff\u2019s motion to dismiss is therefore denied.\nII.\nDefendants argue that the trial court erred in denying their motion to dismiss plaintiff\u2019s cause of action because plaintiff\u2019s complaint was a legal nullity. If the complaint is determined to be a legal nullity, then the statute of limitations on the estate\u2019s claim expired on 25 February 2006, prior to plaintiff\u2019s counsel\u2019s appearance in the action. For the reasons discussed in the companion case, we hold that the trial court did not err in denying defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss. Because the trial court did not err in denying defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss, we need not address plaintiff\u2019s cross-assignment regarding the trial court\u2019s grant of defendants\u2019 motion to amend their answer to assert that plaintiff\u2019s complaint was a legal nullity.\nIII.\nIn summary, we grant defendants\u2019 petition for writ of certiorari and thus deny plaintiff\u2019s motion to dismiss. We also hold, for the reasons stated in the companion case, that the trial court did not err in denying defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss. We therefore affirm the order of the trial court.\nAffirmed.\nJudge WYNN concurs.\nJudge JACKSON dissents in a separate opinion.\n. This is a companion case to Reid v. Cole, 187 N.C. App. 261, 652 S.E.2d 718 (2007), and the underlying facts are the same.", "type": "majority", "author": "HUNTER, Judge." }, { "text": "JACKSON, Judge,\ndissenting.\nFor the reasons stated in the companion case, I respectfully dissent from the majority\u2019s conclusion to reach the merits of this case. I would (1) hold that the order is interlocutory, (2) grant the motion to dismiss, and (3) deny the petition for writ of certiorari.", "type": "dissent", "author": "JACKSON, Judge," } ], "attorneys": [ "Hemmings & Stevens, P.L.L.G., by Kelly A. Stevens, for plaintiff-appellee.", "Walker, Allen, Grice, Ammons & Foy, L.L.P., by O. Drew Grice, Jr., and Jerry A. Allen, Jr., for defendants-appellants Jack C. Cole, D. O. and Carolina Physicians, P.A." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "MARGARET JONES REID, in the matter of the Estate of WILLIAM REID, JR., Plaintiff v. JACK C. COLE, D.O., CHRISTIAN MANN, M.D., CLIFFORD W. LINDSEY, M.D., CAROLINA PHYSICIANS, P.A., PITT MEMORIAL HOSPITAL FOUNDATION, INC., AND PITT COUNTY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL INC., Defendants\nNo. COA07-265\n(Filed 20 November 2007)\n1. Appeal and Error\u2014 appealability \u2014 denial of motion to dismiss \u2014 writ of certiorari \u2014 notice of appeal filed less than a week late \u2014 administration of justice\nAlthough defendant\u2019s appeal in a medical malpractice case from the denial of their motion to dismiss is typically an appeal from an interlocutory order, the Court of Appeals elected in its discretion to grant defendants\u2019 petition for writ of certiorari and to address the merits of the appeal where defendants\u2019 notice of appeal was filed less than a week late and the administration of justice would best be served by granting defendants\u2019 petition.\n2. Appeal and Error\u2014 appealability \u2014 cross-assignment of error \u2014 prior determination in companion case\nPlaintiff\u2019s cross-assignment of error regarding the trial court\u2019s grant of defendants\u2019 motion to amend their answer to assert that plaintiff\u2019s complaint was a legal nullity based on the unauthorized practice of law does not need to be addressed because the Court of Appeals already concluded in a companion case that the trial court did not err by denying defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss plaintiff\u2019s medical malpractice action for wrongful death even though defendants contended the complaint was a legal nullity based on the unauthorized practice of law.\nJudge JACKSON dissenting.\nAppeal by defendants Jack C. Cole, D.O. and Carolina Physicians, P.A. from an order entered 30 November 2006 by Judge Thomas D. Haigwood in Pitt County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 18 September 2007.\nHemmings & Stevens, P.L.L.G., by Kelly A. Stevens, for plaintiff-appellee.\nWalker, Allen, Grice, Ammons & Foy, L.L.P., by O. Drew Grice, Jr., and Jerry A. Allen, Jr., for defendants-appellants Jack C. Cole, D. O. and Carolina Physicians, P.A." }, "file_name": "0299-01", "first_page_order": 329, "last_page_order": 332 }