*1 APPEALS COURT OF Clinic, Surgical P.A. v. Pinehurst Woodell acceptance to the Section’s assigns last error Petitioner its own the Section violated claiming Heel’s application, Tar .0305(h). an ap- 3R This states that regulation 10 NCAC regulation review unless it is in a batch for will not be included plication day days before the of the more than Agency to the delivered was regulation The discloses that schedule. record review with, assignment. we merit hence find no to this complied error, we do in assignments no error Finding petitioner’s Therefore, we of error. cross-assignment address respondent’s not in case was error contested petitioner’s there no conclude hearing and affirm. and Wells concur.
Judges Arnold WOODELL, and JAMES III v. PINEHURST SURGICAL CONNIE WOODELL CLINIC, PISHKO, KILPATRICK, M.D., P.A., M.D., W. K. MICHAEL T. LONG, SMITH, M.D., E. M.D. and JERRY CLIFFORD J. 8420SC1249 No. (Filed 1985) 3 December § Physicians, Surgeons negligent diagnosis Allied Professions 24.1— of twins— summary judgment proper for defendant Summary judgment plain- proper in an for defendant action in which alleged negligent physical tiffs that defendants’ of twins resulted in distress, suffering, pain anguish expended mental and emotional sums items, duplicate clothing plaintiffs’ other but forecast of only non-permanent (pain anguish showed discomfort distress) hurt, injury. physical upset emotional The emotional and em- healthy delivery plaintiff upon negligent suffered barrassment after the recovery misdiagnosis a sufficient of twins not basis for when there injury; physical stipulation plaintiffs’ no evidence of that all facts in complaint were true did admit that plaintiffs’ because some of contentions involved conclusions. Phillips
Judge dissenting. Helms, Judge. from Order entered APPEAL Court, County. in Superior Heard September MOORE 5 June 1985. Court Appeals
N.C.App.] v. Pinehurst
Woodell *2 West, Perkinson, Doster, Staton, W. by Stanley &West for plaintiff appellants. Blount, Dorsett,
Smith, Anderson, Jernigan, Mitchell & H. and William King Jodee Sparkman Samuel G. Thompson, Moss, appellees. for defendant
BECTON, Judge. and physicians defendant Woodell sued the
Plaintiff Connie they injuries associated for which were then the clinic with that negligent diagnosis their resulting from damage allegedly twins, was carrying when in fact she was with pregnant she allegedly is Her husband’s action for consortium fetus. single discovery, the trial court injuries. her After because of lost summary judgment ground on the motion for defendants’ granted against fact issue of material genuine evidence raised that We affirm. Procedure. Rule N.C. Rules of Civil any of them. in this was for the defendants Summary granted judgment de- show that of evidence failed to the forecast case because any, any injury damage plain- if caused negligence, fendants’ Woodell, tiff, as actionable. Plaintiff regards law that our Connie physical pain she underwent that alleged money sums of expended emotional distress anguish and therefore, She, takes items. baby clothing and other duplicate this purposes “For following stipulation: comfort in the [sum- motion, in the all facts mary judgment] stipulation, Based this be true.” were deemed to Complaint because summary inappropriate was judgment contends plaintiff (1) eighth fifth and between the that suggests: the evidence four plaintiff examined her defendants pregnancy, months of employee their operated an ultrasound device times (2) device; that the ultra- use was not qualified who agent, showing the examinations each of interpreted sound operator twins, operator a competent whereas carrying was plaintiff that show a sin- examinations readily that recognized have would (3) fetus; qualified was not operator knew the that defendants gle (4) examination; de- that an ultrasound interpret to conduct and condi- of plaintiffs and treatment fendants based (5) after the first that interpretations; operator’s on the tion more food to eat plaintiff advised defendants examination Woodell v. Pinehurst (6) later, twins; that carrying because she weight more
gain recommended, advised gain when less than defendants which pregnancy were with the problems developing her that (7) children; stillbirth both that defend- could result in the shortly she her until before her due date that ants did tell only a carrying single fetus. First, “conclu- some of contentions involve because sions,” “facts stipulation to note that the refers to it important Thus, did not admit not “conclusions.” the defendants alleged,” Second, injuries. has our Court plaintiff repeatedly observed that: *3 distress in
For a
to recover for emotional or mental
plaintiff
case,
the mental
ordinary
prove
an
must
negligence
[s]he
impact
the
of some
proximate
physical
distress was
result
from the
injury
resulting
to
also
physical
with or
[her]self
Bennett,
498,
251
v.
N.C.
defendant’s
Williamson
negligence.
(1960).
48
112 S.E. 2d
Davis,
529,
896, 901,
537, 235 S.E. 2d
v.
33 N.C. App.
McDowell
dismissed,
360,
S.E.
293 N.C.
237
2d
appeal
rev. denied
disc.
57,
Gilmore,
(1977);
57
ery negligently-arrived-at after of recovery when there is basis for sufficient injury. not, “Recovery for Mental referring Byrd, to have
We
of action.
cavalierly disposed
of
cause
Anguish,” supra,
condition,
well as the emotional
as
the physical
We realize that
woman,
adversely
to
likely
be
pregnant
mental
of a
status
incorrect,
information
alarming,
contradictory
affected
For
our
example,
appellate
to
her pregnancy.
her about
provided
involv-
cases
injury”
“physical
requirement
lessened the
courts
intentional,
to
inflic-
negligent,
opposed
wilful
ing the
Stanback, 297
v.
N.C.
tion of
distress. See Stanback
emotional
(1979);
181,
302
see also Dickens v.
N.C.
Puryear,
254 S.E.
2d
(1981)
437,
limiting
Stanback
(distinguishing
276 S.E.
2d
cases).
way of fur-
anguish
By
of
to intentional
infliction
mental
allowed,
forecast
upon
proper
have
example,
ther
our courts
evidence,
to go
causes of
unrecognized
new or heretofore
action
Hankins,
1,
See,
App.
Hutchens v.
N.C.
jury.
e.g.,
(1983)
denied,
191,
Affirm. Phillips
Judge dissents. Eagles
Judge concurs. Phillips
Judge dissenting. in the my opinion, In of fact ac- complaint, the statements the cepted as evidence and deemed to true for of this purposes be that of appeal, negligence plaintiff, as a result defendants’ “the Woodell, and physical pain suffering, Connie underwent money anguish and emotional distress” and sums of “expended duplicate baby for and clothing damages other items” raises a OF COURT Pinehurst
Woodell v. interpretation the broad should decide. jury issue that a “[G]iven Stanback, law,” Stanback v. in our case injury’ ‘physical of 611, (1979), 198-99, 181, me plain seems to 254 S.E. 2d it N.C. another, by is not when inflicted physical pain that injury. Nor of physical evidence —it law’s warrant or too trivial to injury either unforeseeable vacuum, anxiety is not exist in a The mind does not concern. harmless, suggest; pregnant of old cases necessarily as some be- harmful states worry themselves into do sometimes women are to involve believed pregnancies their problems cause to attempting of their time goodly part a spend and obstetricians anxieties; by that her advised her doctor allay being such any injurious to may profoundly born dead can be child be expenditures her extra The to stipulated woman. de- also tends to show that and other items clothing unneeded respect. in another That the was actionable negligence fendants’ existence not neither eliminates large are not damages recovery. law that authorizes their principle nullifies the Furthermore, testimony and other evidence medical expert an issue of fact as to whether by raised presented plaintiffs and are recklessly being indifferent to her well were defendants con- damages. improperly That subject punitive therefore to is evi- operators unqualified examinations diagnostic ducted discussion, and is requires no professional negligence dence of But the evidence shows why argued appeal. this issue was not more, my though to show that the defendants It tends opinion. and had mis- incompetent ultrasound operator knew that the examinations, they nevertheless chose to base their read other examinations operator’s condition on the than mere inadvertence This indicates more interpretations. indif- disregard an “intentional of and oversight; it indicates safety which plaintiff, ference to the of’ the rights are Hinson v. damages and for which authorized. punitive (1956). Dawson, 23, 28, 92 S.E. 2d Since the N.C. and persistent willingness evidence tends to show conscious skilled, apparently experienced professionals expose plaintiff harm inherent in a false it a cause of ac- diagnosis, supports the tion, *5 any have been suffered
whether deemed to not.