{
  "id": 8525686,
  "name": "GENEVA THOMPSON and DAVID O. THOMPSON v. WILLIAM H. NEWMAN, Individually, and WILLIAM H. NEWMAN, M.D., P.A.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Thompson v. Newman",
  "decision_date": "1985-05-07",
  "docket_number": "No. 8412SC898",
  "first_page": "597",
  "last_page": "598",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "74 N.C. App. 597"
    }
  ],
  "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": "274 S.E. 2d 276",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "50 N.C. App. 565",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        2677076
      ],
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/50/0565-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "265 S.E. 2d 652",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "46 N.C. App. 636",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8552762
      ],
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/46/0636-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "302 S.E. 2d 754",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1983,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "759"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "308 N.C. 393",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4706622
      ],
      "year": 1983,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "400"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/308/0393-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 259,
    "char_count": 3581,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.78,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.7192456287991704e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8300499372743353
    },
    "sha256": "5f86dd5604979c77d8d4f33cfb3f2461530ef4dbcf4da2592ebe59c568a6f5f5",
    "simhash": "1:89cde4b325e1d4af",
    "word_count": 573
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:43:43.207286+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Arnold and Phillips concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "GENEVA THOMPSON and DAVID O. THOMPSON v. WILLIAM H. NEWMAN, Individually, and WILLIAM H. NEWMAN, M.D., P.A."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "COZORT, Judge.\nIn this civil action, the plaintiffs seek to recover damages from the defendants for a mastectomy performed on plaintiff Geneva Thompson allegedly without obtaining her informed consent. Plaintiff Geneva Thompson seeks compensatory damages based on the alleged negligence and further seeks punitive damages alleging that the negligence was gross and in reckless or wanton disregard of her rights. Plaintiff David 0. Thompson, Geneva\u2019s husband, seeks compensatory and punitive damages, alleging the surgery caused a loss of consortium.\nThe defendants moved to dismiss the claims on the basis that the action as set forth by the plaintiffs sounds in assault and battery and was not timely filed within the applicable one year statute of limitations. At a hearing on the motion, Judge Edwin S. Preston, Jr., denied the defendants\u2019 motion. The defendants further moved to dismiss the claims for failure to state a claim against the defendants upon which relief could be granted. After a hearing on the G.S. 1A-1, Rule 12(b)(6) motion, Judge James H. Pou Bailey dismissed the entire claim of plaintiff David 0. Thompson and dismissed the claim for punitive damages of plaintiff Geneva Thompson, leaving for trial only her claim for compensatory damages. Plaintiffs appealed the dismissals by Judge Bailey. The defendants have cross-assigned as error Judge Preston\u2019s denial of their first motion.\nThe orders before this Court are plainly interlocutory and do not necessitate immediate review. \u201cPursuant to G.S. \u00a7 1-277 and G.S. \u00a7 7A-27, no appeal lies to an appellate court from an interlocutory order or ruling of a trial judge unless such order or ruling deprives the appellant of a substantial right which he would lose absent a review prior to final determination.\u201d A.E.P. Industries v. McClure, 308 N.C. 393, 400, 302 S.E. 2d 754, 759 (1983). Neither party has shown any deprivation of a substantial right. Furthermore, under G.S. 1A-1, Rule 54(b), in the absence of a determination by the trial judge that \u201cthere is no just reason for delay,\u201d there can be no appellate review of an order which adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties. Pasour v. Pierce, 46 N.C. App. 636, 265 S.E. 2d 652 (1980). The record below contains no such determination by the trial court. Additionally, the defendants\u2019 first motion to dismiss is not immediately appealable. Williams v. East Coast Sales, 50 N.C. App. 565, 274 S.E. 2d 276 (1981).\nAppeal dismissed.\nJudges Arnold and Phillips concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "COZORT, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Downing, David & Maxwell by Edward J. David for plaintiff appellants.",
      "Anderson, Broadfoot, Anderson, Johnson & Anderson by Hal W. Broadfoot for defendant appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "GENEVA THOMPSON and DAVID O. THOMPSON v. WILLIAM H. NEWMAN, Individually, and WILLIAM H. NEWMAN, M.D., P.A.\nNo. 8412SC898\n(Filed 7 May 1985)\nAppeal and Error \u00a7 6.6\u2014 dismissal of punitive damages and loss of consortium claims \u2014denial of dismissal on basis of statute of limitations \u2014 no right of immediate appeal\nOrders dismissing plaintiff wife\u2019s claim for punitive damages in a medical malpractice case and plaintiff husband\u2019s action for loss of consortium, leaving for trial only the wife\u2019s claim for compensatory damages, did not affect a substantial right and were not immediately appealable. Nor was an order denying defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss on the basis of the statute of limitations immediately appealable.\nAPPEAL by plaintiffs from Bailey, Judge. Order entered 3 April 1984 in Superior Court, Cumberland County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 16 April 1985.\nDowning, David & Maxwell by Edward J. David for plaintiff appellants.\nAnderson, Broadfoot, Anderson, Johnson & Anderson by Hal W. Broadfoot for defendant appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0597-01",
  "first_page_order": 629,
  "last_page_order": 630
}