{ "id": 1511250, "name": "MARGARET WRENN ANDERSON v. DR. DEAN GEORGE ASSIMOS, M.D., DR. R. LAWRENCE KROOVARD, M.D., DR. MARK R. HESS, M.D., WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY PHYSICIANS, WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY BAPTIST MEDICAL CENTER, THE MEDICAL CENTER OF BOWMAN GRAY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE and NORTH CAROLINA BAPTIST HOSPITAL and THE NORTH CAROLINA BAPTIST HOSPITALS, INCORPORATED", "name_abbreviation": "Anderson v. Assimos", "decision_date": "2002-11-22", "docket_number": "No. 621A01", "first_page": "415", "last_page": "417", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "356 N.C. 415" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C.", "id": 9292, "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "553 S.E.2d 63", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2001, "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "146 N.C. App. 339", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11357286 ], "year": 2001, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/146/0339-01" ] }, { "cite": "160 S.E.2d 320", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1968, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "322-23" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "273 N.C. 439", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8575523 ], "year": 1968, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "443" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/273/0439-01" ] }, { "cite": "175 S.E. 836", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1934, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "838" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "207 N.C. 6", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8621595 ], "year": 1934, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "10" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/207/0006-01" ] }, { "cite": "473 S.E.2d 3", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "5", "parenthetical": "quoting Weil v. Herring, 207 N.C. 6, 10, 175 S.E. 836, 838 (1934)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "344 N.C. 190", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 867543 ], "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "194", "parenthetical": "quoting Weil v. Herring, 207 N.C. 6, 10, 175 S.E. 836, 838 (1934)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/344/0190-01" ] }, { "cite": "341 S.E.2d 538", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "543" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "316 N.C. 318", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4695225 ], "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "324" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/316/0318-01" ] }, { "cite": "547 S.E.2d 808", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2001, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "353 N.C. 369", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 135656, 135849, 135789, 135698, 135798 ], "year": 2001, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/353/0369-04", "/nc/353/0369-05", "/nc/353/0369-03", "/nc/353/0369-01", "/nc/353/0369-02" ] }, { "cite": "539 S.E.2d 40", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "43" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "141 N.C. App. 121", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9440127 ], "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "125" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/141/0121-01" ] }, { "cite": "136 S.E.2d 33", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1964, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "34" }, { "page": "34" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "261 N.C. 684", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8575261 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1964, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "686" }, { "page": "686" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/261/0684-01" ] }, { "cite": "100 L. Ed. 1473", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed.", "year": 1956, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "351 U.S. 949", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1105198, 1104850, 1105037, 1104738 ], "year": 1956, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/351/0949-02", "/us/351/0949-03", "/us/351/0949-01", "/us/351/0949-04" ] }, { "cite": "89 S.E.2d 441", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1955, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "453" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "242 N.C. 650", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8621516 ], "year": 1955, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "667" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/242/0650-01" ] }, { "cite": "66 L. Ed. 2d 11", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "449 U.S. 807", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11718918, 11719144, 11718961, 11719057, 11719096, 11719002, 11718878 ], "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/449/0807-02", "/us/449/0807-07", "/us/449/0807-03", "/us/449/0807-05", "/us/449/0807-06", "/us/449/0807-04", "/us/449/0807-01" ] }, { "cite": "265 S.E.2d 387", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "299 N.C. 731", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8575864 ], "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/299/0731-01" ] }, { "cite": "261 S.E.2d 908", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "914" }, { "page": "913" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "299 N.C. 351", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8575088 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "359" }, { "page": "358-59" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/299/0351-01" ] }, { "cite": "273 S.E.2d 661", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "664" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "302 N.C. 157", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8564177 ], "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "161" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/302/0157-01" ] }, { "cite": "131 S.E.2d 469", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1963, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "473" }, { "page": "472-73" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "259 N.C. 506", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8561287 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1963, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "512" }, { "page": "511-12" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/259/0506-01" ] }, { "cite": "212 S.E.2d 103", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1975, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "105" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "286 N.C. 541", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8569342 ], "year": 1975, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "543" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/286/0541-01" ] }, { "cite": "196 S.E.2d 760", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1973, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "767" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "283 N.C. 479", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8559249 ], "year": 1973, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "490" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/283/0479-01" ] }, { "cite": "515 S.E.2d 885", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "893" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "350 N.C. 483", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 131924 ], "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "495" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/350/0483-01" ] }, { "cite": "553 S.E.2d 63", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2001, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "146 N.C. App. 339", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11357286 ], "year": 2001, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/146/0339-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 520, "char_count": 7017, "ocr_confidence": 0.727, "pagerank": { "raw": 8.84408143416914e-07, "percentile": 0.9781062525266917 }, "sha256": "35a57e60f8372f4e63b1aba927f8cda7681fe77a4ba1a23a5ef392e7a8d25ec2", "simhash": "1:107970ca3c2b0c5d", "word_count": 1122 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:17:54.672071+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "MARGARET WRENN ANDERSON v. DR. DEAN GEORGE ASSIMOS, M.D., DR. R. LAWRENCE KROOVARD, M.D., DR. MARK R. HESS, M.D., WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY PHYSICIANS, WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY BAPTIST MEDICAL CENTER, THE MEDICAL CENTER OF BOWMAN GRAY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE and NORTH CAROLINA BAPTIST HOSPITAL and THE NORTH CAROLINA BAPTIST HOSPITALS, INCORPORATED" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "PER CURIAM.\nThe Court of Appeals concluded that Rule 9(j) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure violates Article I, Section 18 of the North Carolina Constitution and the Equal Protection Clauses of the North Carolina and United States Constitutions. Anderson v. Assimos, 146 N.C. App. 339, 553 S.E.2d 63 (2001).\nA constitutional issue not raised at trial will generally not be considered for the first time on appeal. State v. Nobles, 350 N.C. 483, 495, 515 S.E.2d 885, 893 (1999); Porter v. Suburban Sanitation Serv., Inc., 283 N.C. 479, 490, 196 S.E.2d 760, 767 (1973). Furthermore, the courts of this State will avoid constitutional questions, even if properly presented, where a case may be resolved on other grounds. State v. Crabtree, 286 N.C. 541, 543, 212 S.E.2d 103, 105 (1975); see Rice v. Rigsby, 259 N.C. 506, 512, 131 S.E.2d 469, 473 (1963).\nThis Court may exercise its supervisory power to consider constitutional questions not properly raised in the trial court, but only in exceptional circumstances. See, e.g., State v. Elam, 302 N.C. 157, 161, 273 S.E.2d 661, 664 (1981); Rice, 259 N.C. at 511-12, 131 S.E.2d at 472-73; see also N.C. R. App. P. 2. Even so, constitutional analysis always requires thorough examination of all relevant facts. State v. Fayetteville St. Christian Sch., 299 N.C. 351, 359, 261 S.E.2d 908, 914, aff\u2019d per curiam on reh\u2019g, 299 N.C. 731, 265 S.E.2d 387, and appeal dismissed, 449 U.S. 807, 66 L. Ed. 2d 11 (1980). Thus, a constitutional question is addressed \u201conly when the issue is squarely presented upon an adequate factual record and only when resolution of the issue is necessary.\u201d Id. To be properly addressed, a constitutional issue must be \u201cdefinitely drawn into focus by plaintiff\u2019s pleadings.\u201d Hudson v. Atlantic Coastline R.R. Co., 242 N.C. 650, 667, 89 S.E.2d 441, 453 (1955), cert. denied, 351 U.S. 949, 100 L. Ed. 1473 (1956). If the factual record necessary for a constitutional inquiry is lacking, \u201can appellate court should be especially mindful of the dangers inherent in the premature exercise of its jurisdiction.\u201d Fayetteville St., 299 N.C. at 358-59, 261 S.E.2d at 913.\nPlaintiff\u2019s complaint asserts res ipsa loquitur as the sole basis for the negligence claim. Because the pertinent allegations have not been -withdrawn or amended, the pleadings have a binding effect as to the underlying theory of plaintiff\u2019s negligence claim. See Davis v. Rigsby, 261 N.C. 684, 686, 136 S.E.2d 33, 34 (1964); Bratton v. Oliver, 141 N.C. App. 121, 125, 539 S.E.2d 40, 43, (2000), disc. rev. denied, 353 N.C. 369, 547 S.E.2d 808 (2001). Moreover, our review of the record shows that at the hearing in this matter plaintiff represented to the trial court that her negligence claim was based solely on res ipsa loquitur. This judicial admission is \u201cbinding in every respect.\u201d Estrada v. Burnham, 316 N.C. 318, 324, 341 S.E.2d 538, 543 (1986). Having made this representation, plaintiff cannot now assert a contradictory position, Davis, 261 N.C. at 686, 136 S.E.2d at 34, or \u201c \u2018swap horses between courts in order to get a better mount,\u2019 \u201d State v. Sharpe, 344 N.C. 190, 194, 473 S.E.2d 3, 5 (1996) (quoting Weil v. Herring, 207 N.C. 6, 10, 175 S.E. 836, 838 (1934)). Therefore, for purposes of this action, plaintiff\u2019s negligence claim is based solely on res ipsa loquitur.\nRes ipsa loquitur claims are normally based on facts that permit an inference of defendant\u2019s negligence. See, e.g., Kekelis v. Whitin Mach. Works, 273 N.C. 439, 443, 160 S.E.2d 320, 322-23 (1968). The certification requirements of Rule 9(j) apply only to medical malpractice cases where the plaintiff seeks to prove that the defendant\u2019s conduct breached the requisite standard of care \u2014 not to res ipsa loquitur claims. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 9(j) (2001). As plaintiff in this case asserts only a res ipsa loquitur claim, the certification requirements of Rule 9Q) are not implicated. Thus, the Court of Appeals erred in addressing the constitutionality of Rule 9(J) under these circumstances.\nAccordingly, the decision of the Court of Appeals is vacated to the extent it concluded that Rule 9(j) violates Article I, Section 18 of the North Carolina Constitution and the Equal Protection Clauses of the North Carolina and United States Constitutions, and defendants\u2019 appeal is dismissed.\nVACATED IN PART AND APPEAL DISMISSED.", "type": "majority", "author": "PER CURIAM." } ], "attorneys": [ "Mary K. Nicholson for plaintiff-appellee.", "Tuggle Duggins & Meschan, P.A., by J. Reed Johnston, Jr., Amanda L. Fields, and Robert A. Ford, for defendant-appellants.", "North Carolina Chapter of the American Society of Healthcare Risk Management of the American Hospital Association, by Thomas L. Eure, Ken M. Nanney, and Ronald Burris, amicus curiae.", "Faison & Gillespie, by O. William Faison, John W. Jensen, Jonathan C. Sauls, and Kristen L. Beightol, on behalf of the North Carolina Academy of Trial Lawyers, amicus curiae.", "Center for Constitutional Litigation, P.C., by Roberts. Peck, on behalf of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America; and the American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina Legal Foundation, Inc., by SethH. Jaffe, amici curiae.", "Smith Anderson Blount Dorsett Mitchell & Jernigam,, LLP, by James D. Blount, Jr., Michael W. Mitchell, Christopher G. Smith, andJ. Mitchell Armbruster, on behalf of North Carolina Medical Society, North Carolina Hospital Association, the Medical Specialty Societies, North Carolina Medical Group Managers, Old North State Medical Society, and North Carolina Association of Physicians of Indian Origin; and Manning, Fulton & Skinner, PA., by JohnB. McMillan, on behalf of North Carolina Citizens for Business arid Industry and National Federation of Independent Business, amici curiae." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "MARGARET WRENN ANDERSON v. DR. DEAN GEORGE ASSIMOS, M.D., DR. R. LAWRENCE KROOVARD, M.D., DR. MARK R. HESS, M.D., WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY PHYSICIANS, WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY BAPTIST MEDICAL CENTER, THE MEDICAL CENTER OF BOWMAN GRAY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE and NORTH CAROLINA BAPTIST HOSPITAL and THE NORTH CAROLINA BAPTIST HOSPITALS, INCORPORATED\nNo. 621A01\n(Filed 22 November 2002)\nAppeal and Error; Medical Malpractice\u2014 Rule 9(j) certification requirements \u2014 constitutionality improperly considered\nThe certification requirements of Rule of Civil Procedure 9(j) apply only to medical malpractice cases in which the plaintiff seeks to prove that the defendant\u2019s conduct breached the requisite standard of care and do not apply to res ipsa loquitur claims. Therefore, where plaintiff asserted a medical malpractice claim based solely on res ipsa loquitur, the certification requirements of Rule 9(j) were not implicated, and the Court of Appeals erred in addressing the constitutionality of Rule 9(j) in this case.\nAppeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 146 N.C. App. 339, 553 S.E.2d 63 (2001), reversing and remanding an order of dismissal entered 14 December 1999 by Vosburgh, J., in Superior Court, Guilford County. Heard in the Supreme Court 10 September 2002.\nMary K. Nicholson for plaintiff-appellee.\nTuggle Duggins & Meschan, P.A., by J. Reed Johnston, Jr., Amanda L. Fields, and Robert A. Ford, for defendant-appellants.\nNorth Carolina Chapter of the American Society of Healthcare Risk Management of the American Hospital Association, by Thomas L. Eure, Ken M. Nanney, and Ronald Burris, amicus curiae.\nFaison & Gillespie, by O. William Faison, John W. Jensen, Jonathan C. Sauls, and Kristen L. Beightol, on behalf of the North Carolina Academy of Trial Lawyers, amicus curiae.\nCenter for Constitutional Litigation, P.C., by Roberts. Peck, on behalf of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America; and the American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina Legal Foundation, Inc., by SethH. Jaffe, amici curiae.\nSmith Anderson Blount Dorsett Mitchell & Jernigam,, LLP, by James D. Blount, Jr., Michael W. Mitchell, Christopher G. Smith, andJ. Mitchell Armbruster, on behalf of North Carolina Medical Society, North Carolina Hospital Association, the Medical Specialty Societies, North Carolina Medical Group Managers, Old North State Medical Society, and North Carolina Association of Physicians of Indian Origin; and Manning, Fulton & Skinner, PA., by JohnB. McMillan, on behalf of North Carolina Citizens for Business arid Industry and National Federation of Independent Business, amici curiae." }, "file_name": "0415-01", "first_page_order": 465, "last_page_order": 467 }