BETTY D. WRIGHT, Plaintiff
WAKEMED also known as WAKE COUNTY HOSPITAL SYSTEM, INC., GURVINDER SINGH DEOL, M.D., and JULIAN SMITH, PA-C, Defendants
Heard in the Court of Appeals: November 19, 2014.
Appeal by plaintiff from order entered 12 March 2014
by Judge Beecher R. Gray in Vance County Superior Court, No. 13 CVS 782.
Rogers and Rogers Lawyers, by Michael F. Rogers, for Plaintiff.
Yates, McLamb & Weyher, L.L.P., by Dan J. McLamb, Crystal B. Mezzullo, and Andrew C. Buckner, for Defendants.
ERVIN, Judge. Judges ELMORE and DAVIS concur.
Plaintiff Betty D. Wright appeals from an order granting Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint. On appeal, Plaintiff contends that the trial court erred by allowing Defendants' dismissal motion on the grounds that Plaintiff's complaint was not certified as required by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 9(j) despite the fact that Plaintiff had attempted to assert a medical malpractice claim against Defendants. After careful consideration of Plaintiff's challenge to the trial court's order in light of the record and the applicable law, we conclude that the trial court's order should be affirmed.
I. Factual Background
On 21 September 2010, Plaintiff was admitted to WakeMed hospital for spinal surgery. Following the procedure, Plaintiff was
discharged by WakeMed's Surgical and Recovery ACUTE unit and transferred to the WakeMed REHAB unit on 28 September 2010.
At the time of the transfer, Plaintiff was provided with a document entitled " WakeMed REHAB Admission Orders; Admission Medication Orders," which contained a list of medications that had been prescribed for Plaintiff, including prescription and general medications that had not been included in a previous medication list prepared by WakeMed ACUTE for Plaintiff. More specifically, Defendants negligently directed that Xanax, Geodon and Lithium be included in the " Admission Medication Orders," resulting in the ingestion of these medications and an episode of somnolence and lethargy from which Plaintiff suffered for several days.
On 8 August 2013, Plaintiff filed a complaint seeking the recovery of damages for personal injury from Defendants in which Plaintiff alleged that she was entitled to prevail on a res ipsa loquitur theory. On 16 October 2013, Defendants filed an answer in which they denied the material allegations set out in Plaintiff's complaint and sought to have Plaintiff's complaint dismissed on a number of grounds, including a failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. After a hearing held on 3 March 2014 for the purpose of considering the issues raised by Defendants' ...