In re: DavisÂ
256 N.C. App. 436
| N.C. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Claimant Davis was involuntarily sterilized in 1946 and applied for compensation under North Carolina's Eugenics Asexualization and Sterilization Compensation Program.
- The Industrial Commission denied Davis's claim for lack of proof that the sterilization was performed under authority of the North Carolina Eugenics Board as required by N.C.G.S. § 143B-426.50.
- Davis appealed to the Court of Appeals; this Court in Maye I affirmed denial based on prior precedent (House I) and dismissed some arguments as non-constitutional or unpreserved.
- The North Carolina Supreme Court allowed discretionary review limited to Claimant’s constitutional claims and remanded to the Court of Appeals for expedited consideration per Redmond II.
- On remand the Court of Appeals (McGee, C.J.) considered whether (a) procedural preservation rules (Rule 10 and statutory appeal rules) barred Davis’s constitutional challenge and (b) on the merits whether Davis’s equal protection/fundamental fairness challenge to the program’s reliance on Eugenics Board records had merit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Davis may raise constitutional claims on appeal though she did not present them to the Industrial Commission | Davis: Redmond II allows raising constitutional challenges for the first time in the Appellate Division when appeals lie directly from an administrative tribunal | State/DOJ: Constitutional claims must be preserved/certified to the Commission or raised via declaratory judgment; failure to do so deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction or forfeits review under Rule 10(a)(1) | Court: In the alternative holdings, if Rule 10(a)(1) applies Davis’s claim is unpreserved and dismissed; but even on the merits (per Redmond II) the constitutional claim fails. |
| Whether the Compensation Program required Eugenics Board archive records as the sole means to prove eligibility, rendering the statute under-inclusive and violating equal protection/fundamental fairness | Davis: Denying compensation where Board records are absent creates an irrational under-inclusive classification that denies equal protection and fundamental fairness | Industrial Commission/State: The Program and its rules do not require Eugenics Board records as the only proof; claimants may submit other evidence and the Office searches Board records but absence of those records does not automatically bar eligibility | Court: No rule required Board records as the exclusive proof; Davis failed to prove she was sterilized pursuant to the Eugenics Board’s authority, so she is not similarly situated to claimants who proved Board-authorized sterilizations; equal protection/fundamental fairness claim fails. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Redmond, 797 S.E.2d 275 (N.C. 2017) (Appellate Division may consider constitutional challenges raised for first time on appeal from an administrative tribunal under certain circumstances)
- In re House, 782 S.E.2d 115 (N.C. Ct. App. 2016) (interpreting eligibility requirements for compensation under the Eugenics Compensation Program)
- Carolinas Med. Ctr. v. Emp’rs & Carriers Listed in Ex. A, 616 S.E.2d 588 (N.C. Ct. App. 2005) (agency lacks authority to decide constitutional questions; procedural paths for constitutional challenges discussed)
- In re Hughes, 801 S.E.2d 680 (N.C. Ct. App. 2017) (rejecting equal protection challenge to the Compensation Program on the merits)
- Myles v. Lucas & McCowan Masonry, 645 S.E.2d 143 (N.C. Ct. App. 2007) (constitutional issues not certified to the Commission or preserved are not reviewable on appeal)