853 S.E.2d 258
N.C. Ct. App.2020Background
- Blue alleged defendants ordered an elevated PSA test on January 24, 2012 (PSA 87.9) and failed to follow up or refer him; a later PSA on March 22, 2018 (PSA 1,763) preceded a diagnosis of metastatic prostate cancer.
- Blue sued on June 17, 2019 for medical negligence; defendants moved to dismiss under N.C. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) asserting the statute of limitations had run.
- At the 12(b)(6) hearing the parties submitted memoranda and counsel presented oral arguments that included factual assertions not contained in the complaint; defendants protested that material was beyond the four corners of the complaint.
- The trial court’s order recited that it reviewed the pleadings, memoranda, and arguments and granted the motion to dismiss, but did not exclude the extra-pleading facts or give the parties an opportunity to present Rule 56 evidence.
- The Court of Appeals held consideration of factual matters outside the pleadings converted the 12(b)(6) motion into a Rule 56 summary-judgment motion, and because the parties were not given a reasonable opportunity to present evidence the dismissal was reversed and remanded for discovery and an opportunity to present Rule 56 evidence.
- A dissent would have affirmed, finding no conversion, concluding the complaint was time-barred under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-15(c), and holding Blue’s allegations did not invoke the continuing-course-of-treatment exception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court’s 12(b)(6) ruling was converted to a Rule 56 summary-judgment decision | Blue: court considered extra-pleading facts and thus conversion occurred requiring Rule 56 procedures | Defs: court did not convert motion; at most reviewed pleadings or made a 12(c) ruling | Held: conversion occurred because memoranda/arguments contained factual matters outside the complaint and the court did not exclude them |
| Whether parties were given a reasonable opportunity to present evidence under Rule 56 after conversion | Blue: no — parties were not afforded discovery or a chance to present Rule 56 material | Defs: followed 12(b)(6) constraints and relied on pleadings | Held: no reasonable opportunity was given; remand required so parties can present evidence |
| Whether the complaint is time-barred / applicability of continuing-course-of-treatment doctrine | Blue: alleges defendants continued as primary care providers through Jan 2019, so accrual could be later | Defs: negligent act occurred in 2012 and suit filed in 2019 is beyond statute; continuing-treatment not shown | Held: Court of Appeals did not decide merits (statute of limitations) because record incomplete; remanded for Rule 56 process |
| Whether plaintiff should have been allowed to amend complaint at hearing | Blue: requested leave to amend if complaint was deficient | Defs: no specific argument on amendment at hearing | Held: appellate court did not rule on amendment request (issue not reached because case remanded); dissent would have treated oral request as insufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Privette v. Univ. of N.C. at Chapel Hill, 96 N.C. App. 124 (1989) (memoranda/arguments containing factual matters outside pleadings can convert Rule 12 motion to Rule 56)
- Brantley v. Watson, 113 N.C. App. 234 (1994) (oral arguments and undisputed facts outside complaint converted Rule 12(b)(6) to Rule 56)
- Erie Ins. Exch. v. Builders Mut. Ins. Co., 227 N.C. App. 238 (2013) (party briefs that do not add facts do not convert Rule 12 to Rule 56)
- Kemp v. Spivey, 166 N.C. App. 456 (2004) (remand required to allow parties opportunity for discovery and presentation of evidence after conversion)
- Premier, Inc. v. Peterson, 232 N.C. App. 601 (2014) (appellate courts should not resolve limitations issues on an incomplete factual record)
- Stallings v. Gunter, 99 N.C. App. 710 (1990) (continuing-course-of-treatment doctrine accrual rule and requirements)
- Hargett v. Holland, 337 N.C. 651 (1994) (statute-of-limitations defense may be grounds for dismissal when it appears on face of complaint)
- Leary v. N.C. Forest Prods., Inc., 157 N.C. App. 396 (2003) (de novo review standard for 12(b)(6) dismissals)