Wrongful Termination Cases

improper notice of right to appeal disciplinary action; career status employee; N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1235

Petition for Judicial Review; State Board of Elections; Fruits of Labor

Rule 12(b)(6) motion; Rule 56 Summary Judgment; Materials outside the pleadings; Facial constitutional challenge; N.C. Gen. Stat. §1-267.1; Fruits of Labor clause.

MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE — INFORMED CONSENT — FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION — CIV.R. 42 — JOINT TRIALS — COMMON QUESTIONS OF LAW OR FACT — JURY INSTRUCTIONS — ADVERSE INFERENCE — EXPERT TESTIMONY — EVID.R. 601 — DAMAGES — CIV.R. 19 — PAST MEDICAL EXPENSES — PUNITIVE DAMAGES — R.C. 2315.21 — PREJUDGMENT INTEREST — R.C. 1343.03 — GOOD-FAITH EFFORT — R.C. 2323.43 — SETOFF — R.C. 2307.28 — R.C. 2307.25: The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it ordered joint trials for two plaintiffs because common questions of law and fact existed where the plaintiffs asserted the same causes of action against the same defendants and the expert testimony presented at trial focused on whether the surgeries performed on the plaintiffs were medically indicated, and because the record does not indicate that the jury ignored the trial court's instruction to consider each case on its own merits. [But see CONCURRENCE: Concurring in the majority's opinion on this issue subject to a caveat regarding the proper postjudgment considerations when assessing prejudice from the joinder of trials under Civ.R. 42.] The trial court did not err in admitting the testimony of an expert medical witness where the witness satisfied the active-clinical-practice requirement in the July 2023 version of Civ.R. 601(B)(5)(b), which assessed the competency of a witness to testify at the time of the alleged medical negligence, because plaintiffs' cases were pending at the time that the trial court applied the amended rule. The trial court did not commit reversible error in issuing an absent-defendant jury instruction advising that defendant doctor's absence from trial gave rise to a negative inference where it also instructed the jury that it retained the discretion to make or reject inferences. The trial court did not err in allowing the jury to consider and award damages for past medical expenses to plaintiffs where it conditioned the receipt of those damages on the requirement that plaintiffs obtain releases fr