DocketNumber: I.C. NO. TA-17254.
Judges: <center> INTERLOCUTORY DECISION AND ORDER for the Full Commission by BERNADINE S. BALLANCE, Commissioner, N.C. Industrial Commission.</center>
Filed Date: 2/9/2010
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/6/2016
2. Plaintiff James Bunch (hereinafter "Bunch") alleges in his complaint that NCDOC employees negligently failed and refused to protect him from the dangers of second-hand smoke.
3. NCDOC moved to dismiss Bunch's claim under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and on the ground that the proximate cause of Bunch's alleged injury is the intentional conduct of parties not mentioned in Bunch's affidavit.
4. Bunch filed a "brief in opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss" alleging he "was denied medical care for a specific complaint by doctors at Nash, Marion, and Pasquotank." Bunch also alleged that "the primary allegations against the defendants are based on their negligent denial of medical treatment, delayed treatment, refusal to treat, premature discharge, and reckless endangerment." The Full Commission treats this as a Motion to Amend the initial claim filed on Bunch's Form T-1, and grants the Motion to Amend and also addresses that claim in this order.
5. Bunch did not provide an affidavit from a doctor or medical expert pursuant to Rule 9(j) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure with his Tort Claim Affidavit.
2. N.C. Gen. Stat. §
3. Although Bunch alleges negligence, the acts of the NCDOC employees were following notice of Bunch's claim and grievances filed by Bunch and, therefore, were intentional acts. Bunch has failed to allege any negligence on the part of any named officer, employee, involuntary servant, or agent of the state while acting within the scope of his or her office, employment, service, agency, or authority that proximately caused plaintiff an injury. N.C. Gen. Stat. §
4. Intentional acts and constitutional violations are not torts and therefore are not within the scope of the Tort Claims Act. N.C. Gen. Stat. §
5. Pursuant to Rule 9(j) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure "[a]ny complaint alleging medical malpractice by a health care provider as defined in N.C. Gen. Stat. §
*Page 4a. The pleading specifically asserts that the medical care has been reviewed by a person who is reasonably expected to qualify as an expert witness under Rule 702 of the Rules of Evidence and who is willing to testify that the medical care did not comply with the applicable standard of care;
b. The pleading specifically asserts that the medical care has been reviewed by a person that the complainant will seek to have qualified as an expert witness by motion under Rule 702(e) of the Rules of Evidence and who is willing to testify that the medical care did not comply with the applicable standard of care, and the motion is filed with the complaint; or
c. The pleading alleges facts establishing negligence under the existing common-law doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
6. Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. §
2. Bunch's additional claim for medical negligence is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and Bunch shall have one year from the filed date of this order in which to re-file the claim with appropriate affidavit required by Rule 9(j). *Page 5
No costs are taxed as Plaintiff Bunch was permitted to file this civil action in forma pauperis.
This the ___ day of January, 2010.
S/_______________ BERNADINE S. BALLANCE COMMISSIONER
CONCURRING:
S/_______________ PAMELA T. YOUNG CHAIR
S/_______________ DANNY LEE McDONALD COMMISSIONER *Page 1