The North Carolina Court of Appeals published a decision in a free-speech retaliation case in  Ginsberg v. Board of Governors of the University of North Carolina.  The plaintiff, who worked at NC State University as a teaching assistant professor, contended that the University had violated her First Amendment free speech rights by punishing her in a hiring decision in retaliation for her protected speech.  On November 9, 2007, the plaintiff was reprimand by professors for purportedly showing bias during her introductory statements on a film that was being presented on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  Just weeks later, the plaintiff was de-listed as a first-tier candidate for an open tenure track position, and some of the professors who had reprimanded her were on the search committee.  Nonetheless, affirming the trial court’s grant of summary judgment, the Court concluded that the plaintiff had failed to present sufficient evidence of causation between her protected speech and the university’s hiring decision.  The Court held that she had not supported her claim “beyond mere speculation.”

Categories: Judicial Decisions Tags: Appeals, Case Commentary, Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, First Amendment, Labor and Employment, NC Court of Appeals, North Carolina, Retaliation, Summary Judgment

Burton Craige addressed another bill passed in the North Carolina General Assembly this session with his paper entitled “SB 33: The Brave New World of Malpractice Litigation” where he summarizes Senate Bill 33, shows its evolution and addresses some of the possible constitutional challenges that it may face.  He spoke about his paper at a CLE hosted by the North Carolina Advocates for Justice in Raleigh on August 31, 2011.

Introduction:

On July 25, 2011, the North Carolina House of Representatives, by a vote of 74-42, overrode Governor Perdue’s veto of the medical malpractice bill (SB 33). The enactment of SB 33 culminated an intense six-month legislative battle.

When the Act becomes effective on October 1, 2011, a new era of malpractice litigation in North Carolina will begin. Injured patients, who already face formidable barriers, will find it harder to find a lawyer, pursue their claims, and recover adequate compensatory damages. Lawyers and judges will be forced to decipher complex new statutory language.  Courts will confront constitutional challenges to the bill’s most controversial provision, the $500,000 cap on noneconomic damages.

Categories: News of the Firm Tags: Articles, Burton Craige, CLE, Constitutional Law, Legislation, Medical Malpractice, NC Legislature, NCAJ, Personal Injuries, Presentation

Burton Craige authored a paper this month titled “Billed v. Paid: Present, Past, Future”.  Burton presented his paper this month at the North Carolina Advocates for Justice CLE, “Bill v. Paid: Counting the True Cost.”  His paper discusses the way the “Billed v. Paid” issue is handled in other states and how North Carolina’s law has changed over the years.

Introduction:

In June 2011, the North Carolina General Assembly enacted HB 542, titled “Tort Reform for Citizens and Businesses.”  Section 1.1 of HB 542 creates a new rule of evidence (Rule 414) that limits evidence of past medical expenses to “the amounts actually paid to satisfy the bills” and “the amounts actually necessary to satisfy the bills that have been incurred but not yet satisfied.”  Section 1.2 amends G.S. § 8-58.1, limiting the plaintiff’s testimony about reasonable medical expenses to the amount “paid or required to be paid in full satisfaction” of the charges. In combination, the new provisions, commonly referred to as “billed v. paid,” will significantly reduce the amount that injured plaintiffs can recover for their medical expenses.  The billed v. paid provisions are effective for all actions “arising on or after” October 1, 2011.

In the past decade, many states have confronted the billed v. paid issue in their appellate courts.  A handful of states have addressed the issue legislatively.  This paper reviews the experience in other jurisdictions, traces the evolution of billed v. paid in North Carolina, and identifies a potential constitutional challenge to the new legislation.

Categories: News of the Firm Tags: Articles, Burton Craige, CLE, Constitutional Law, Damages, Medical Bills, NC Legislature, NCAJ, North Carolina, Personal Injuries, Presentation

A civil rights complaint has been filed in federal court on behalf of Plaintiff Gregory Flynt Taylor against Peter Duane Deaver and other former employees of the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation seeking damages for his wrongful incarceration.  The complaint may be viewed here.

In April 1993, Mr. Taylor was wrongfully convicted and sentenced to life in prison for a murder two years earlier which he did not commit.  The Defendants worked in the SBI Crime Lab and wrote a deliberately misleading report about evidence collected from the crime scene.  Because this report misrepresented the facts and the findings of the laboratory tests, Mr. Taylor was convicted of a crime he did not commit and spent the next 17 years in prison.  On February 17, 2011 a three-judge panel unanimously found that Mr. Taylor was innocent of the charge of murder and ordered his immediate release.  Mr. Taylor was given a full Pardon of Innocence by Governor Beverly Perdue on May 21, 2010.

Mr. Taylor’s complaint brings claims under the federal constitution, North Carolina Constitution, and North Carolina common law.  Mr. Taylor is represented by Burton Craige and Narendra Ghosh, as well as Spencer Parris and Christopher Olson at Martin & Jones.

Categories: News of the Firm Tags: Burton Craige, Civil Rights, Complaint, Constitutional Law, EDNC, Exoneration, Narendra Ghosh, Negligence, Personal Injuries, Wrongful Conviction, Wrongful Incaceration

The following briefs opposing defendants’ motion to dismiss have recently been filed in Dail, v. City of Goldsboro, et al.: Plaintiff’s First Response Brief and Plaintiff’s Second Response Brief.  Mr. Dail was convicted of a crime he did not commit and subsequently imprisoned for 18 years.  He was exonerated in 2007 when DNA evidence proved his innocence.  This evidence – which was later recovered – had been improperly handled and allegedly destroyed in 1995 by the City of Goldsboro.  The case is now before Judge Boyle in federal court (EDNC). Mr. Dail is represented by Burton Craige and Narendra Ghosh of Patterson Harkavy, as well as Spencer Parris and Christopher Olson at Martin & Jones.  More on the case can be found here.  This a summary of Plaintiff’s argument:

Dail has properly stated cognizable claims for relief arising from his wrongful incarceration. Dail has stated a valid claim for municipal liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S. Ct. 2018 (1978), because Defendants had a policy or practice of failing to properly inventory and safeguard evidence, including the evidence that ultimately exonerated Dail. Defendants’ unconstitutional conduct arbitrarily denied Dail’s liberty interest and resulted in his continued wrongful incarceration. Unlike the plaintiff in District Attorney’s Office for Third Judicial District v. Osborne, 129 S. Ct. 2308 (2009), the principal case upon which Defendants rely, Dail has not impermissibly used § 1983 to seek access to potential evidence, but instead properly invokes § 1983 to redress Defendants’ unconstitutional failure to reasonably maintain evidence.

Dail has also properly brought state law claims for negligence and obstruction of justice, which are not time-barred. Those claims did not accrue until August 27, 2007, when Defendants first notified Dail of the results of the DNA testing, or on August 28, 2007, when Dail was finally released from custody, and thus were timely filed on August 26, 2010. Finally, Dail has stated valid claims under the North Carolina Constitution based on Defendants’ violations of his rights to procedural due process and entitlement to exculpatory evidence.

This case presents weighty issues of constitutional significance in an evolving area of law. Consideration of the merits of the claims asserted in this action should follow development of a full factual record.

Categories: News of the Firm Tags: Briefs, Burton Craige, Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, EDNC, Exoneration, Narendra Ghosh, Negligence, Personal Injuries, Wrongful Conviction, Wrongful Incaceration

A civil rights complaint was filed this month on behalf of Plaintiff Dwayne Allen Dail against the City of Goldsboro and individual defendants to seek redress for his wrongful incarceration.  The complaint may be viewed here.

Mr. Dail was arrested on May 13, 1988 for the rape of a 12 year old girl.  He maintained his innocence from the date of his arrest onward and insisted that evidence collected from the crime scene be tested against his DNA.  After Mr. Dail’s conviction, the City of Goldsboro reported that the evidence had been destroyed.  Eventually, in 2007, after repeated requests for this evidence, the Goldsboro Police Department acknowledged that, contrary to their previous representations, they were in fact in possession of the evidence from the crime scene.  The DNA evidence was tested against Mr. Dail’s DNA and he was finally exonerated after 18 years of imprisonment and set free.

Mr. Dail’s complaint brings claims under the federal constitution, North Carolina Constitution, and North Carolina common law.  Mr. Dail is represented by Burton Craige and Narendra Ghosh, as well as Spencer Parris and Christopher Olson at Martin & Jones.

Categories: News of the Firm Tags: Burton Craige, Civil Rights, Complaint, Constitutional Law, Exoneration, Narendra Ghosh, Negligence, Personal Injuries, Wrongful Conviction, Wrongful Incaceration

In a unanimous decision, the North Carolina Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s decision awarding Plaintiff Rebecca Davis joint custody of the child she raised with her former domestic partner:

Defendant Margaret Swan appeals from an order granting Plaintiff Rebecca Davis joint legal custody and secondary physical custody of Swan’s biological child (“minor child”). Swan argues that the trial court erred by applying the best interest standard to the child custody dispute between the parties. Because the record shows that Swan acted inconsistently with her constitutionally protected right to exclusive care and control of the minor child, we affirm the trial court’s decision to apply the best interest of the child standard.

On appeal, Davis was represented by Burton Craige, Narendra Ghosh, and Sharon Thompson of the Sharon Thompson Law Group.

Categories: Judicial Decisions, Results Tags: Appeals, Burton Craige, Constitutional Law, Family Law, Narendra Ghosh, NC Court of Appeals, Results

The North Carolina Court of Appeals ruled for the plaintiff in Adkins v. Stanley County Board of Education, a case in which we represented the North Carolina Advocates for Justice in an amicus brief filed with the Court.  Reversing the trial judge, the Court of Appeals concluded that the judge had inappropriately overruled an earlier judge’s ruling on the core First Amendment issue in this employment retaliation case.

Although the two judge’s rulings were at different phases in the case, they both ruled on the same question of law.  In such situations, a trial judge cannot overrule an earlier judge’s decision — that is the province of the appellate courts.  The Court thus did not reach the state constitutional question presented in the NCAJ’s amicus brief.

Categories: News of the Firm Tags: Amicus, Appeals, Burton Craige, Constitutional Law, Labor and Employment, Narendra Ghosh, NC Court of Appeals, Results

On Friday, in Baxter v. Danny Nicholson, Inc., the North Carolina Supreme Court upheld an Industrial Commission decision that defendants had attacked on the grounds that one of the Commissioners was not authorized to exercise his powers on the day of the decision.  The case arose out of the transition when one of the Commissioners was replaced in 2007.  On February 2, 2007, the three-member panel of the Commission signed the opinion and award in this case.  That same day, then-Governor Easley notified then-Commissioner Bolch (whose term had formally expired, but who was holding over pending a replacement) that he was appointing Commissioner McDonald to replace him.  The panel’s decision was filed on February 5, and McDonald took his oath of office on February 9.  The Governor’s office explained that there is a delay in taking the oath just so that the old Commissioner can finish and issue any pending cases that he worked on.

Reversing the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court unanimously concluded that the authority of an appointed officer continues until the date on which his successor takes the oath of the office in question and thereby becomes duly qualified to begin performing the duties of that office.  The Court found that the laws on replacing state officers did not violate Article VI of the North Carolina Constitution.  As Commissioner Bolch could validly issue the decision, the Court remanded the case so that it could be considered on its merits.

Categories: Judicial Decisions Tags: Case Commentary, Constitutional Law, Industrial Commission, NC Constitution, NC Court of Appeals, NC Supreme Court, Workers' Compensation

At the 25th Annual North Carolina/South Carolina Labor and Employment Law CLE held in Charleston, South Carolina, Jonathan Harkavy will present his 2008-09 annual review of the Supreme Court’s employment law cases.  His paper is entitled Supreme Court of the United States Employment Law Commentary, 2008 Term.

Summary: The 2008 Term of the Supreme Court of the United States, forged in volatile economic times and framed on a changing political palette, not only reaffirmed the Court’s interest in employment-related cases, but also revealed a growing institutional confidence in shaping employment law. While a fully coherent approach to employment disputes continued to elude the Court, it was not for lack of trying, as the Justices decided nearly a dozen cases treating some aspect of the employment relationship. Notably, these cases, many of which were determined by closely divided votes, mirror a deep philosophical fracture portrayed more broadly across the spectrum of the Court’s work. All in all, therefore, the 2008 Term was one of high interest for both the employment bar and the general public, as well as one of considerable consequence for workers, employers, and labor organizations.

Read more…

Categories: News of the Firm Tags: Articles, Case Commentary, Constitutional Law, Jonathan Harkavy, Labor and Employment, NCBA, Presentation, US Supreme Court