Ragsdale v. WhitleyÂ
257 N.C. App. 336
| N.C. Ct. App. | 2018Background
- Alec Seeburger underwent neurosurgery by Dr. John Whitley on March 6, 2011 for a large pituitary adenoma; post‑op swelling caused a severe stroke and lasting neurological injury.
- A blood test could have identified a prolactinoma treatable medically; plaintiff alleges Whitley negligently failed to order that test and performed unnecessary surgery.
- Alec (born Jan 19, 1996) alleged disability and originally sued on May 20, 2015; that complaint was voluntarily dismissed Nov 12, 2015.
- A guardian ad litem (GAL) was appointed for Alec on Dec 7, 2015; plaintiff refiled Dec 31, 2015 and amended April 5, 2016.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment asserting the malpractice claim was time‑barred under the applicable statutes of limitation.
- Trial court granted summary judgment, reasoning an adjudication of incompetency under Chapter 35A was required to toll the statute; plaintiff appealed and the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an adjudication of incompetency under Chapter 35A is required to toll the statute of limitations under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1‑17(a) | Tolling applies if the plaintiff meets the statutory definition of "incompetent adult"; no judicial adjudication is required | Statutory tolling requires a formal adjudication of incompetency under Chapter 35A before tolling applies | Court: No adjudication required; statute’s plain language tolls limitations if the person meets the statutory definition of incompetent adult (adjudication not a prerequisite) |
| Whether a genuine issue of material fact exists as to Alec’s incompetency (so as to toll the limitations period) | Presented multiple affidavits (treating physicians, teachers, GAL, Alec) showing persistent cognitive and functional deficits since surgery, supporting tolling until GAL appointment | Submitted expert affidavit opining Alec has been competent since turning 18 and presently competent | Court: Viewing evidence in plaintiff’s favor, sufficient forecast exists to create a genuine factual dispute about incompetency; summary judgment was improper |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Will of Jones, 362 N.C. 569 (discussing de novo review and summary judgment standard)
- Fox v. Health Force, Inc., 143 N.C. App. 501 (holding adjudication of incompetency not required to toll limitations where the person in fact met the statutory definition of incompetent)
- Forbis v. Neal, 361 N.C. 519 (authoritative statement of summary judgment standard)