258 N.C. App. 178
N.C. Ct. App.2018Background
- In Jan–Apr 2014 Wake County DSS was involved after Latonya Taylor obtained a DVPO against her estranged husband Holden; DSS caseworkers visited the home and schools and completed safety assessments.
- Holden obtained emergency custody of the children and later, on April 9, 2014, shot and killed Taylor’s parents and shot Taylor in front of the children; he was charged criminally.
- Taylor sued Wake County DSS in superior court for negligence, negligent supervision, negligent infliction of emotional distress, wrongful death, and willful/wanton negligence, and alleged in the alternative a direct state constitutional (Corum) claim under Article I, § 19.
- Simultaneously she filed a Tort Claims Act claim against the State (DHHS) in the NC Industrial Commission alleging the same facts and damages.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to Wake County DSS, dismissing the common-law claims on governmental immunity grounds and dismissing the Corum claim because Taylor had an adequate state remedy in the Industrial Commission.
- Taylor appealed, arguing the Industrial Commission claim was not an adequate remedy because it cannot reach Wake County DSS and has statutory damage limits that differ from superior-court remedies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a Tort Claims Act claim against DHHS in the Industrial Commission is an “adequate state remedy” that precludes a Corum claim against a county DSS in superior court | Taylor: The Industrial Commission remedy is inadequate because it cannot recover from Wake County DSS directly and damages there are limited (caps, no punitive damages) | Wake County DSS: Adequate remedy focuses on whether plaintiff can recover for the injury (not from which defendant); the Industrial Commission provides a forum and possible recovery for the same injuries | Court: Adequacy depends on plaintiff’s ability to recover for the injury (not the party); because Taylor’s Industrial Commission claim (if successful) compensates the same injuries, Corum claim against DSS is barred |
Key Cases Cited
- Corum v. Univ. of N.C., 330 N.C. 761 (1992) (creates direct state-constitutional cause of action where no adequate state remedy exists)
- Sale v. State Highway & Pub. Works Comm’n, 242 N.C. 612 (1955) (court fashioned remedy where constitutional right would otherwise go uncompensated)
- Midgett v. N.C. State Highway Comm’n, 260 N.C. 241 (1963) (permitting direct constitutional claim where statutory remedy was unavailable)
- Meyer v. Walls, 347 N.C. 97 (1997) (county DSS are agents of State; Tort Claims Act jurisdiction over State doesn’t automatically strip superior-court claims against county agency when agency has not waived immunity)
- Craig v. New Hanover Cty. Bd. of Educ., 363 N.C. 334 (2009) (adequacy requires at least an opportunity to litigate; sovereign immunity that bars access renders remedy inadequate)
- Copper v. Denlinger, 363 N.C. 784 (2010) (administrative remedies can be adequate when they provide a real opportunity to be heard)
- Wilcox v. City of Asheville, 222 N.C. App. 285 (2012) (claims against officials in individual capacity can render Corum claim unnecessary because they offer a chance at recovery)
- Rousselo v. Starling, 128 N.C. App. 439 (1998) (adequacy turns on availability of compensation for the violation, not on whether recovery must come from the State)
- Alt v. Parker, 112 N.C. App. 307 (1993) (administrative grievance and common-law tort were adequate alternate remedies barring a Corum claim)
- Estate of Fennell v. Stephenson, 137 N.C. App. 430 (2000) (no adequate remedy where the analogous common-law claim would not survive to provide compensation)