Court Rulings

<bold>Administrative Law — judicial review of final agency</bold> <bold>decision — specific findings required</bold> <block_quote> The superior court erred by dismissing an adoptive parent's petition for judicial review of a final agency decision concerning Medicaid services for the child and by denying all relief, and the case is vacated and remanded to the superior court with instructions to remand to the agency for specific findings why the agency did not adopt the recommended decision of the ALJ, because: (1) the superior court exceeded its authority under the pre-2001 version of the Administrative Procedure Act, which is applicable in this case, when N.C.G.S. § <cross_reference>150B-51</cross_reference>(a) requires a superior court to make two threshold determinations before determining whether there is substantial evidence to support an agency decision and the superior court failed to do so; (2) a threshold determination must be made by the superior court to determine whether an agency rejected an ALJ decision without stating the specific reasons for doing so, and if the agency does not provide specific reasons, the superior court is not permitted to conduct substantive review but must reverse or remand on the procedural issue; and (3) in the absence of stated reasons by the agency as to why it rejected the ALJ decision, the courts cannot reasonably determine from the record whether the petitioner's asserted grounds for challenging the substance of the agency's<page_number>Page 402</page_number> final decision warrant reversal or modification of that decision under the applicable provisions of N.C.G.S. § <cross_reference>150B-51</cross_reference>(b).</block_quote>

<bold>1. Appeal and Error — preservation of issues —</bold> <bold>failure to raise issue in complaint</bold> <block_quote> Although plaintiff contends the trial court erred in a premises liability case by entering summary judgment in favor of defendants when there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the person who injured her was an employee, agent, or independent contractor of defendants, this issue is dismissed because plaintiff failed to raise this issue in her complaint or to base her theory of recovery from defendants on vicarious liability.</block_quote> <bold>2. Premises Liability — open and obvious danger</bold> <bold>— summary judgment — failure to allege agents</bold> <block_quote> The trial court did not err in a premises liability case by granting summary judgment in favor of two of the defendants even though plaintiff contends the danger created by the high-speed buffing machine that caused her injury was not so open or obvious that as a matter of law defendants were relieved of their duty to protect visitors from or to warn visitors about such a dangerous condition, because: (1) these defendants did not own or operate the store in which plaintiffs injury occurred; and (2) plaintiff failed to allege in her complaint that either of these two defendants were agents of defendant grocery store.</block_quote><page_number>Page 208</page_number> <bold>3. Premises Liability — duty to keep premises safe</bold> <bold>and warn of hidden dangers — summary judgment —</bold> <bold>genuine issue of material fact</bold> <block_quote> The trial court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of defendant grocery store in plaintiff's action to recover for injuries received when she was struck by a buffer machine in the store because: (1) defendant as owner and operator of the store owed a duty to plaintiff to keep its premises safe and to warn her of any hidden dangers on its premises; and (2) there was more than one inference that could b