The North Carolina Supreme Court issued its latest round of decisions on April 15.  Two cases are worthy of note.  In the first, Brown v. Kindred Nursing Centers East, the 4-3 majority ruled that a plaintiff’s medical malpracitce complaint had to be dismissed because the plaintiff did not properly comply with the 120-day extension procedure of Rule 9(j) — the special rule for medical malpractice cases requiring the certification by a physician of the validity of the complaint.   As the dissent pointed out, the majority’s opinion was both wrong on the merits, and especially harsh because the plaintiff filed his original complaint pro se.

In White v. Thompson, the Court (again over a dissent by Justice Hudson) held that the plaintiff did not state a valid claim under the Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices (UDTP) Act.  The case was between former business partners in a partnership.  The Court concluded that the UDTP does not cover actions in a business’s internal operations.  This continues a line of cases carving out most employment law disputes from the purview of the UDTP Act.

Categories: Judicial Decisions Tags: Case Commentary, Justice Hudson, Labor and Employment, Medical Malpractice, NC Supreme Court, Personal Injuries, Rule 9(j), UDTP

In Combs v. City Electric Supply Company, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court in large part, concluding that the plaintiff had presented sufficient evidence to support a claim of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy and tortious interference with contract.  The Court, however, upheld the dismissal of the plaintiff’s Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (UDTP) claim.

The plaintiff’s case was based on the allegation that his former employer, City Electric Supply Company, terminated him in retaliation for reporting that the company was stealing from its customers’ accounts. The plaintiff brought three claims: wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, tortious interference of contract, and the UDTP claim. At the close of plaintiff’s evidence the trial judge granted the Defendants’ Motion for a Directed Verdict and entered a judgment in favor of defendants.

The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision to grant a directed verdict on the wrongful discharge and tortious interference claims because the plaintiff presented “more than a scintilla of evidence” in support of each element of these claims.  Crucially, the Court found that there was sufficient evidence that the company had committed criminal conduct, and that the plaintiff was terminated for reporting this conduct.

The Court, however, affirmed the directed verdict on the UDTP claim because the employment dispute between the parties did not include any conduct that would constitute activity “affecting commerce.’” According to the Court, a retaliation claim is simply an employment dispute and does not fall within the purview of the UDTP statute.

Categories: Judicial Decisions Tags: Case Commentary, Labor and Employment, NC Court of Appeals, Retaliation, UDTP, Wrongful Discharge