noting that, “[i]f a party does not have standing to bring a claim, a court has no subject matter UNITED DAUGHTERS OF THE CONFEDERACY, N.C. DIV. V. CITY OF WINSTON-SALEM 2022-NCSC-143 Opinion of the Court jurisdiction to hear the claim”
How later courts described this case
- noting that, “[i]f a party does not have standing to bring a claim, a court has no subject matter UNITED DAUGHTERS OF THE CONFEDERACY, N.C. DIV. V. CITY OF WINSTON-SALEM 2022-NCSC-143 Opinion of the Court jurisdiction to hear the claim”
- "Finally, as we have concluded plaintiff does not have standing to contest the compromise and settlement agreement between defendants and the medical provider, we do not reach the issue of whether the Commission had to approve the settlement agreement under the facts of this case."
- “If a party does not have standing to bring a claim, a court has no subject matter jurisdiction to hear the claim.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
TYSON, Judge
concurring in the result only.
I agree with this Court’s reasoning in our first opinion, Estate of Worth Apple v. Commercial Courier Express, Inc., 165 N.C. App. 530 , 598 S.E.2d 623 (2004) ("Apple I").
As stated in Apple I and restated above in the majority’s opinion, the issue before this Court is whether plaintiff has standing to assert the non-payment of medical expenses by Apple’s employer to a third-party provider. In Apple I, we held:
plaintiff has no standing to bring a claim for past due medical expenses owed to a third-party medical provider by an employer in a compensable workers’ compensation claim where[:] (1) the medical provider has made no claim for relief before the Commission^] and (2) plaintiff has made no showing that the failure to make payment results in injury in fact.
Id. at 532 , 598 S.E.2d at 625 .
Our reasoning and analysis was sufficiently set forth in Apple I. Defendant raised the issue of plaintiff’s standing in its brief. Plaintiff had the opportunity, but failed, to file a reply brief. See N.C.R. App. P. 28(h) (2004). Plaintiff demonstrated no need to address arguments not originally raised on appeal. I concur only in the result reached in the majority’s opinion on rehearing and adhere to the reasoning set forth in our first opinion.