In Re Redmond Ex Rel. Nichols, 369 N.C. 490

Background

In 1956 Kay Frances Redmond was involuntarily sterilized under North Carolina’s Eugenics Board; she died in 2010.
The General Assembly created the Eugenics Asexualization and Sterilization Compensation Program in 2013, requiring claimants to be "alive on June 30, 2013" to qualify.
Redmond’s estate filed a claim to the Industrial Commission; a deputy commissioner and then the full Commission denied the claim as noncompliant with the "alive on June 30, 2013" requirement.
The full Commission certified a constitutional question (equal protection and due process under state and federal constitutions) to the Court of Appeals, noting the Commission lacks authority to decide constitutional issues.
The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, reasoning facial challenges to statutes must be transferred to a three‑judge panel in Wake County under N.C.G.S. § 1‑267.1(a1) and Rule 42(b)(4).
The North Carolina Supreme Court granted review and held the Court of Appeals does have jurisdiction to hear the constitutional challenge on appeal from the Industrial Commission; it reversed and remanded for merits consideration.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to decide claimant’s constitutional challenge on appeal from Industrial Commission	Redmond: appeal from final Commission decision may raise constitutional questions in the Court of Appeals; § 1‑267.1(a1)/Rule 42(b)(4) apply only to complaints filed in a court	State: facial statutory challenges must be transferred to Wake County three‑judge panel under § 1‑267.1(a1) and Rule 42(b)(4), so Court of Appeals lacks jurisdiction	Court: § 1‑267.1(a1)/Rule 42(b)(4) apply to complaints filed in courts; Commission is an administrative tribunal, so Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to hear the constitutional challenge on appeal
Whether the Industrial Commission could decide the constitutional question itself	Redmond: Commission lacked authority to decide constitutionality and properly certified question to appellate court	State: (implicit) Commission’s certification insufficient; constitutional challenges should be routed to three‑judge panel	Court: Commission is a quasi‑judicial administrative agency and lacks power to determine constitutionality; certification to appellate court was appropriate
Whether precedent requiring constitutional issues to be raised and passed on below bars appellate consideration when coming from administrative tribunal	Redmond: cases requiring issues be raised below assume a court below; rule inapplicable where appeal lies directly from administrative tribunal to appellate court	State: reliance on prior precedent (e.g., Rate Bureau) limiting appellate review	Court: prior cases distinguishing administrative appeals (and Rate Bureau) support that constitutional questions may be raised for first time in Appellate Division when appeal lies directly there
Whether § 7A‑26/7A‑29 and the Compensation Program’s appeal provisions permit appellate review of constitutional issues	Redmond: statutes grant Court of Appeals jurisdiction over final Commission orders on matters of law; constitutionality is a legal question	State: argued statutory transfer scheme controls and limits appellate route	Court: statutes confer appeal as of right to Court of Appeals for final Commission decisions and do not conflict with § 1‑267.1(a1); Court of Appeals may decide the constitutional issue

Key Cases Cited

Hogan v. Cone Mills Corp., 315 N.C. 127, 337 S.E.2d 477 (1985) (Industrial Commission is primarily an administrative agency with limited judicial power)
Meads v. N.C. Dep’t of Agric., 349 N.C. 656, 509 S.E.2d 165 (1998) (statute constitutionality is for the judiciary, not administrative boards)
State ex rel. Utils. Comm’n v. Carolina Util. Customers Ass’n, 336 N.C. 657, 446 S.E.2d 332 (1994) (administrative commissions lack jurisdiction to decide constitutionality of legislative enactments)
Carolinas Med. Ctr. v. Emp’rs & Carriers, 172 N.C. App. 549, 616 S.E.2d 588 (2005) (Court of Appeals vacated Commission decision that adjudicated constitutional issues and discussed alternative remedies)
State v. Colson, 274 N.C. 295, 163 S.E.2d 376 (1968) (intermediate appellate court may hear substantial constitutional questions in first instance in double‑appeal states)
City of Durham v. Manson, 285 N.C. 741, 208 S.E.2d 662 (1974) (appellate courts normally will not decide constitutional questions not raised and passed upon below)
State v. Cumber, 280 N.C. 127, 185 S.E.2d 141 (1971) (appeal dismissed when substantial constitutional question was not raised and passed below)
State ex rel. Comm’r of Ins. v. N.C. Rate Bureau, 300 N.C. 381, 269 S.E.2d 547 (1980) (discussed limits on appellate consideration of constitutional questions arising from administrative orders; Court here distinguishes and limits its application)