 |
 |
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
en Dr. Pignatiello and the DOC. This assignment of error is overruled.
Plaintiff argues next that the Industrial Commission erred by failing to make certain findings of fact. We disagree.
Under N.C.R. Civ. P. 52(a)(1), " n all actions tried upon the facts without a jury . . . the court shall find the facts specially and state separately its conclusions of law thereon and direct the entry of the appropriate judgment." "Our Supreme Court has noted that 'while Rule 52(a) does not require a recitation of the evidentiary and subsidiary facts required to prove the ultimate facts, it does require specific findings of the ultimate facts established by the evidence, admissions and stipulations which are determinative of the questions involved in the action and essential to support the conclusions of law reached.'" RPR & Assocs. v. University of N.C.-Chapel Hill, 153 N.C. App. 342, 355-56, 570 S.E.2d 510, 519 (2002) (quoting Quick v. Quick, 305 N.C. 446, 452,290 S.E.2d 653, 658 (1982)). Rule 52 applies to cases heard by the Industrial Commission under the Tort Claims Act. See, e.g., Parker v. State Department of Transp., 122 N.C. App. 279, 468 S.E.2d 589 (1996).
"A trial court's duty pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. ยง 1A-1, Rule 52 to find facts and state its conclusions separately 'merely [serves] to provide a basis for appellate review.' The appellate review this Court must be able to conduct consists of a determination of whether (1) the trial court's findings of fact are supported by competent evidence and (2) the trial court's conclusions of law are supported by its findings of fact." Department of Transp. v. Byerly, 154 N.C. App. 454, 459, 573 S.E.2d 522, 525 (2002) (quoting Winston-Salem Wrecker Ass'n v. Barker, 148 N.C. App. 114, 119, 557 S.E.2d 614, 618 (2001)). Thus, "in making findings of fact, the trial court is required only to make brief, pertinent and definite findings and conclusions about the matters in issue[.]" Fortis Corp. v. Northeast Forest Products, 68 N.C. App. 752, 753, 315 S.E.2d 537, 538 (1984) (citation omitted).
We next consider whether plaintiff's suggested findings of fact were required in order for us to review the Commission's Decision and Order. Plaintiff first asserts that the Commission should have found that Dr. Pignatiello advised Sawyer to return to the hospital if he felt worse or "had problems" and that the correctional officers at BCC were not told of this directive. Plaintiff relies heavily on the assertion that the absence of this instruction to correctional officers was significant. We disagree,however, and conclude that a recommendation to bring Sawyer back to the hospital if he "had problems" or "got worse" is too vague to provide any meaningful guidance as to symptoms indicating a need for medical treatment. The presence or absence of a hospital discharge sheet noting that Sawyer should come back to the hospital if he had "problems" would not have made any difference in the correctional officers' ability to meet their duty of care towards Sawyer, and thus is not a part of the analysis of plaintiff's negligence claim. Accordingly, the Industrial Commission was not required to make findings of fact on this issue.
Plaintiff next asserts that the Industrial Commission was required to make a finding of fact that Sawyer was very ill and did not receive necessary medical treatment. As discussed above, the issue is not whether Sawyer should have gotten medical treatment, but whether defendants were negligent in their failure to recognize how ill he was. We conclude that this finding, and numerous additional ones suggested by plaintiff, were not required. The relevant assignments of error are overruled.
We have con
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.
|
|