 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Helton v. N.C. Dep't of Correction12/6/2005
Sawyer; (2) failing to make certain findingsof fact in addition to those set out in the record; and (3) failing to conclude that Sawyer's death was proximately caused by defendants' negligence. At the outset, we note the necessity of distinguishing between legal issues presented by the instant appeal and issues not properly before us.
In her appellate brief, plaintiff correctly states the general rule that the DOC has a "non-delegable duty to provide medical care for inmates[.]" Medley v. N.C. Department of Correction, 330 N.C. 837, 845, 412 S.E.2d 654, 659 (1992). We conclude, however, that the instant appeal does not require our interpretation of DOC's duty to provide its inmates with medical care. The parties essentially agree both that the DOC is generally responsible for an inmate's medical care, and that on 4 July 1999 Sawyer needed medical care. The issue is whether or not the failure to provide timely medical care to Sawyer was due to DOC's negligence, or was simply the result of an unfortunate set of circumstances. Thus, the question is not whether the DOC is responsible for providing medical care to prisoners, but whether the evidence established that defendants negligently breached this duty.
Plaintiff also argues that, because the State had a non-delegable duty to provide medical care, Dr. Pignatiello "was, as a matter of law, an agent of the Defendant-Appellee[.]" We conclude that, for the following reasons, the instant appeal does not raise the question of Dr. Pignatiello's status with respect to the DOC. Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-297 (2003), a claim under the Tort Claims Act must include, inter alia, "(2) he name of the department, institution or agency of the State against which the claim is asserted, and the name of the State employee upon whose alleged negligence the claim is based." G.S. § 143-297(2). "'The purpose of G.S. 143-297(2), requiring a claimant under the Tort Claims Act to name in the affidavit the negligent employee of the State agency, is to enable the agency to investigate the employee actually involved rather than all employees." Smith v. N.C. Dept. of Transp., 156 N.C. App. 92, 99, 576 S.E.2d 345, 351 (2003) (quoting Northwestern Distributors, Inc. v. North Carolina Dept. Of Transp., 41 N.C. App. 548, 551-52, 255 S.E.2d 203, 206 (1979)).
Plaintiff's claim names certain DOC correctional officers, administrators, and DOC health care providers as the negligent State employees. She alleges that the defendants were negligent in failing to return Sawyer to the hospital after his initial visit on 3 July 1999. She does not name Dr. Pignatiello. Further, she asserts on appeal that her "essential claim is that the Defendant-Appellee failed to provide any medical care for inmate Sawyer or to return him to the hospital when his condition worsened . . . not that medical care rendered was not in compliance with the standard of care[.]" And plaintiff emphasizes that she "did not allege medical malpractice by a health care provider"[;] "did not offer any evidence of medical malpractice by a health care provider"[; and] "did not allege that medical care was not inaccordance with the standard of care[.]" Since plaintiff does not allege that Dr. Pignatiello was negligent, the adequacy of Pignatiello's medical treatment is irrelevant. Moreover, because Dr. Pignatiello's medical treatment is not an issue in this case, it is irrelevant whether or not Dr. Pignatiello was an "agent" of the DOC. Therefore, we will not address plaintiff's arguments on this point.
We conclude that the Industrial Commission was not required to make a conclusion of law pertaining either to the State's non-delegable duty to provide medical care, or to the relationship betwe
Page 1 2 3 4 5 North Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|