holding that the plaintiff could recover even though the negligent employee was not named in the affidavit where the affidavit named the employee’s supervising physician
How later courts described this case
- holding that the plaintiff could recover even though the negligent employee was not named in the affidavit where the affidavit named the employee’s supervising physician
- providing that an ineffective assistance of counsel claim may be “dispose[d] of . . . based solely on a petitioner’s failure to meet either prong of the test”
- defining duty as an “obligation, recognized by the law, requiring the person to conform to a certain standard of conduct, for the protection of others against unreasonable risks”
- "Rivers was involuntarily committed into defendant's custody and it, therefore, had a duty to exercise reasonable care in the protection of third parties from injury by Rivers."
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Judge MARTIN, Mark D.,
concurring.
I write separately to emphasize the need for the appellate division to articulate a consistent standard of review when considering the Commission’s factual findings. Compare Andrews v. Fulcher Tire Sales and Service, 120 N.C. App. 602, 605 , 463 S.E.2d 425, 427 (1995) (this Court bound by Commission’s findings if supported by “sufficient competent evidence”) with Strickland v. Carolina Classics Catfish, Inc., 119 N.C. App. 97, 102 , 458 S.E.2d 10, 13 (1995) (this Court’s review limited to determination of whether Commission’s findings are supported by “any competent evidence”). The majority opinion follows the standard of review articulated in Andrews v. Fulcher, supra, and concludes there is sufficient competent evidence to uphold the Commission’s findings. Because I believe the Commission’s findings should be affirmed whether reviewed under the “any competent evidence” standard, or, alternatively, the “sufficient competent evidence” standard, I concur in the majority opinion.