 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Iadanza v. Harper4/19/2005
Plaintiff (Carol Iadanza) appeals the trial court's order for partial summary judgment in favor of defendants (Dr. Robert N. Harper, Jr., and Digestive Diseases Diagnostic Center, P.A.). Defendant (Dr. Robert N. Harper, Jr.) appeals from the trial court's dismissal of his counterclaims. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
The relevant factual and procedural background is summarized as follows: On 7 January 2000 plaintiff Carol Iadanza (Iadanza) consulted defendant Dr. Robert Harper (Harper), for treatment of gastrointestinal symptoms. Thereafter, Harper provided medical care to plaintiff; the parties agree they had a physician-patient relationship, but disagree on its duration. The parties also agree that there were non-professional interactions between them. However, plaintiff and defendants are in sharp disagreement on key issues, including: who initiated the non-professional contacts; their respective personal hopes for a romantic or sexual relationship; the extent of their interactions; and which of them "pursued" the other. Iadanza generally alleges that during the time she was Harper's patient he persistently sought a sexual relationship with her, as demonstrated by his phone calls; his insistence on private meetings; his sexual advances and remarks; and his giving plaintiff a glass of drugged wine. Harper admits that the two had a "friendly non-professional relationship," but denies any romantic interest in Iadanza, and asserts that she was the one who pursued a sexual relationship, which he consistently rebuffed. On 27 February 2003, Iadanza filed suit against defendants seeking compensatory and punitive damages for professional negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. On 10 March 2003, defendants filed an answer denying the material allegations of Iadanza's complaint. Harper also asserted counterclaims against Iadanza and her husband Anthony Iadanza seeking compensatory and punitive damages for slander per se, unfair and deceptive trade practices, civil conspiracy, facilitation of fraud, malicious prosecution, and abuse of process. Plaintiff replied, denying all material allegations and moving for dismissal of defendant's counterclaims. Thereafter, defendants moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of actual damages.
On 13 February 2004 the trial court ruled on the parties' pretrial motions, in an order stating in relevant part that:
Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary judgment on the issue of actual damages with respect to each and every claim for relief set forth in the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is ALLOWED.
Counter Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Counterclaimant's Robert N. Harper, Jr., M.D. counterclaims is ALLOWED as follows: The counterclaim for slander per se is dismissed as barred by the one year statute of limitations. The counterclaim for unfair and deceptive trade practice is dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). The counterclaim for malicious prosecution is dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to allege special damages. The counterclaim for abuse of process is dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to allege a wrongful act was committedby the Counter Defendants. The counterclaim for civil conspiracy is dismissed because said counterclaim is a derivative claim and fails as the underlying tort claims fail.
The counterclaim for facilitation of fraud is dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).
From this order the parties appeal.
Plaintiff's Appeal from Partial Summary Judgment
Plaintiff Carol Iadanza appeals from the trial court's award of summary judgment in favor of defendants
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.
|
|