Court Rulings

<bold>1. Workers' Compensation — occupational disease — failure to make</bold> <bold>necessary findings — greater risk of contracting psychological</bold> <bold>condition</bold> <block_quote> The Industrial Commission erred in a workers' compensation case by concluding that plaintiff did not suffer a compensable occupational disease due to his employment, and the case is remanded for entry of necessary findings, because: (1) work-related depression or other mental illness may qualify as a compensable occupational disease under appropriate circumstances; and (2) the Commission failed to make any finding of fact resolving the conflicting testimony as to whether plaintiff was placed at a greater risk for contracting his psychological condition than the general public.</block_quote> <bold>2. Workers' Compensation — expert testimony — methodology — credibility</bold> <block_quote> The Industrial Commission did not abuse its discretion in a workers' compensation case by admitting the opinion of a psychiatrist that was allegedly not based on scientific, technical, or otherwise specialized knowledge, because: (1) plaintiff's contentions on appeal only challenge the methodology of the expert's opinion which goes to the weight of her testimony and not the admissibility; and (2) North Carolina does not apply the gate-keeping function articulated by <italic>Daubert</italic>, <cross_reference>509 U.S. 579</cross_reference> (1993), but instead leaves the duty of weighing the credibility of the expert testimony to the trier of fact.</block_quote> <bold>3. Workers' Compensation — failure to rule on discovery motions —</bold> <bold>implicit ruling</bold> <block_quote> The Industrial Commission did not err in a workers' compensation case by allegedly failing to rule on certain discovery motions brought against plaintiff because, although the Commission's ruling was not as explicit as desired, an implicit ruling was made on the motions brought forward on appeal to the

<bold>1. Appeal and Error — appealability —</bold> <bold>discovery order — some documents protected, some not</bold> <bold>— immediately appealable</bold> <block_quote> The immediate appeal of a trial court discovery order protecting some but not all of the documents in question affected a substantial right that would otherwise be lost, and the order was reviewed. However, the order will be upset only by a showing that the trial court abused its discretion.</block_quote> <bold>2. Discovery — emails — attorney-client</bold> <bold>privilege — inapplicability</bold> <block_quote> Emails exchanged between bank officials were not protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege where they suggested a purely business matter, were not for legal advice, and the attorneys were copied merely for information. A document without privilege in the hands of the client does not become privileged merely because it is handed to the attorney.</block_quote> <bold>3. Discovery — emails — attorney-client</bold> <bold>privilege — applicability</bold> <block_quote> The trial court did not abuse its discretion by finding that certain emails were protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege where the attorney-client relationship was firmly established at the time the emails were sent; the emails were apparently exchanged in confidence; they related to discovery matters about which the attorneys were being consulted; and they were exchanged in the course of litigation and arbitration.</block_quote><page_number>Page 407</page_number> <bold>4. Discovery — attorney-client privilege —</bold> <bold>applicability</bold> <block_quote> The trial court did not abuse its discretion by ruling that an email from counsel discussing revisions to a draft resolution and an email from in-house counsel were protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege and that an email from attorneys requesting a meeting and an email from defendant shared with attorneys an

<bold>1. Appeal and Error — preservation of issues — questions not</bold> <bold>raised at trial</bold> <block_quote> Issues and theories not raised at trial were not reviewed on appeal.</block_quote> <bold>2. Appeal and Error — preservation of issues — assignments of</bold> <bold>error — arguments required</bold> <block_quote> Assignments of error not supported by argument or authorities were abandoned.</block_quote><page_number>Page 631</page_number> <bold>3. Arbitration and Mediation — denial of motion to compel —</bold> <bold>findings required</bold> <block_quote> The denial of a motion to stay and compel arbitration in a construction dispute was reversed and remanded for further findings where the court's order contained neither factual findings that would allow review, nor a determination of whether an arbitration agreement exists between the parties.</block_quote>