Williams v Lincoln County Emergency Medical Services, et al

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure. NOS. COA11-212, 11-213 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 18 October 2011 DEBRA C. WILLIAMS, ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF DARRIEL WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. Lincoln County Nos. 08 CVS 1612, 10 CVS 352 LINCOLN COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES LINCOLN COUNTY, DEFENDANT, A GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY C/O GEORGE WOOD, COUNTY MANAGER, LINCOLN COUNTY, A GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY, D/B/A LINCOLN COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES C/O RONALD D. ROMBS, DIRECTOR, Defendants. Appeal by Plaintiff from orders entered 7 October 2010 by Judge F. Lane Williamson in Lincoln County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 28 September 2011. Pamela A. Hunter for Plaintiff. Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, by Sean Perrin and Brian Koontz, for Defendants. STEPHENS, Judge. -2On 14 September 2008, following the death of her son, Plaintiff Debra C. Williams ( Williams ) filed a complaint in Lincoln County Superior Court asserting claims for medical malpractice and wrongful death against Defendant Lincoln County Emergency later Medical amended Services her ( Lincoln complaint County to EMS ). identify Williams herself as administratrix of Estate of Darriel Theracon Williams and to name the Medical entity following Services c/o Services Lincoln George governmental entity c/o defendants: (collectively, County, Wood, County d/b/a Ronald Lincoln Defendant, Manager, Lincoln D. a Emergency governmental Lincoln County Rombs, Defendants ). County County, Emergency Director[,] In her a Medical Defendant amended complaint, Williams alleged that her son s death was caused by Lincoln County EMS failure to provide medical treatment and that that failure should be imputed to the remaining defendant(s). Defendants complaint Defendants on filed 15 served their December Williams answer 2008. with to Along a Williams with request amended their for answer, admissions, requesting, inter alia, that Williams admit that Williams son was already dead when Lincoln County EMS arrived to provide medical treatment. Although Williams was granted a 30-day -3extension to respond, she never responded. Based on Williams failure to respond, and pursuant to North Carolina Rule of Civil Procedure 36 which provides that a matter of which an admission is requested is deemed admitted if a party fails to respond (2009) to claims. the request, Defendants On 6 N.C. moved March Gen. for 2009, Stat. summary shortly § 1A-1, judgment before Rule on the 36(a) Williams hearing on Defendants motion, Williams gave notice of voluntary dismissal of her claims. Thereafter, based on the asserted frivolity of Williams claims, Defendants attorneys fees. moved for sanctions and an award of In a 7 July 2009 order, Judge Timothy S. Kincaid granted Defendants motion and ordered Williams and her attorney violation Pamela of Hunter N.C. Gen. to pay Stat. §§ to Defendants 6-21.5 and Williams did not appeal Judge Kincaid s order. $8,249.50 1A-1, Rule for 11. Rather, on 17 July 2009, Williams filed a Motion for new trial, and Motion to set aside judgment, asserting that Judge Kincaid s 7 July 2009 order was contrary to law and [] in error. A hearing on these motions has yet to take place, and the motions are still pending before the trial court. -4On 5 March 2010, Williams filed a second action in Lincoln County Superior Court (the 2010 action ), asserting the same claims as were asserted in Williams dismissed action (the 2008 action ). first, voluntarily- In response, Defendants filed a motion requesting that Williams pay the costs of the 2008 action before continuing the 2010 action. Defendants motion was granted by Judge F. Lane Williamson in a 19 July 2010 order that stated the 2010 action would be dismissed if Williams does not pay to Defendants $8,249.50 within 30 days. Williams failed to pay as ordered, and, on 7 October 2010, Judge Williamson granted Defendants 1 September 2010 motion to dismiss. a notice On 15 November 2010, Williams filed in the 2010 action of appeal of Judge Williamson s order dismissing Williams action. Meanwhile, in the 2008 action, Williams filed an 18 August 2010 notice of appeal regarding Judge Williamson s 19 July 2010 order entered in the 2010 action. On 26 August 2010, Defendants moved the appeal. trial Judge court to dismiss Williamson entered Williams a 7 18 October August 2010 2010 order granting Defendants motion and dismissing Williams 18 August 2010 appeal. On 15 November 2010, Williams filed in the 2008 -5action a notice of appeal of Judge Williamson s 7 October 2010 order dismissing the 18 August 2010 appeal. Williams two appeals the appeal of Judge Williamson s order dismissing Williams 18 August 2010 appeal (filed in the 2008 action) and the appeal of Judge Williamson s order dismissing the 2010 action (filed in the 2010 action), numbered on appeal 11-213 and 11-212, respectively were consolidated for the purposes of appeal by order of this Court entered 20 May 2011. Each appeal is discussed separately below. Appeal of the dismissal of the 18 August 2010 appeal In her 18 August 2010 notice of appeal, Williams attempted to appeal Judge Williamson s 19 July 2010 order on Defendants motion requesting costs from the previously dismissed action. Judge Williamson s 19 July 2010 order provided as follows: (1) Williams shall pay the costs of the previously dismissed action[,] $8,249.50, within 30 days ; (2) [t]his action [the 2010 action] will be dismissed if [Williams] has not paid the costs within 30 days of the filing of this Order ; (3) [a]ll proceedings in this action are payments of cost or dismissal. stayed pending [Williams ] Unquestionably, this order is interlocutory as it clearly directs further proceedings in the action. Blackwelder v. Dept. of Human Res., 60 N.C. App. 331, -6333, 299 S.E.2d 777, 779 (1983) ( A ruling is interlocutory in nature if it does not determine the issues but directs some further proceeding preliminary to final decree. ). Further, Williams does not argue on appeal that the 19 July 2010 order affected a substantial right. N.C. R. App. P. 28(b)(4) appellant s grounds brief for shall contain appellate . . review. ; . [a] When statement ( An the appeal an of is interlocutory, the statement must contain sufficient facts and argument to support appellate review on the ground that challenged order affects a substantial right. the (emphasis omitted)); see also Jeffreys v. Raleigh Oaks Joint Venture, 115 N.C. App. 377, 380, 444 S.E.2d 252, 254 (1994) ( It is not the duty of this Court to construct arguments for or find support for appellant s right to appeal from an interlocutory order; instead, the appellant has the burden of showing this Court that the order deprives the appellant of a substantial right which would be jeopardized absent determination on the merits. ). a review prior to a final Therefore, and regardless of the fact that Williams attempted to appeal an order entered in the 2010 action by filing the 18 August 2010 notice of appeal in the 2008 action, Williams had no right to appeal the 19 July 2010 order. Thus, despite the fact that the trial court lacked -7the authority to dismiss Williams appeal as interlocutory, Estrada v. Jacques, 70 N.C. App. 627, 639, 321 S.E.2d 240, 248 (1984) (holding that a trial judge acted beyond his authority in dismissing the appeal . . . as interlocutory ), Williams appeal from the 19 July 2010 order was taken from an unappealable interlocutory order and should be dismissed. Appeal of the dismissal of the 2010 action The majority of Williams arguments on appeal address the propriety of Judge Defendants attorneys Kincaid s fees. 7 July However, 2009 Williams order gave awarding notice of appeal only from the Order, entered on October 7, 2010 in the Superior Court, Lincoln County, North Carolina which granted the Defendants Motion To Dismiss the Plaintiff s case pursuant [to] Rule 41(d) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, the Honorable F. Lane Williamson, Superior Court Judge, presiding. Because Williams appealed only Judge Williamson s 7 October 2010 order and did not appeal Judge Kincaid s 7 July 2009 order, we address the propriety of Judge Williamson s order and will not address any of Williams arguments regarding Judge Kincaid s order. See Harrington v. Wall, __ N.C. App. __, __, 710 S.E.2d 364, 366-67 (2011) (holding that this Court has jurisdiction only to consider the orders from which [an appellant] has -8provided proper notice of appeal ) (citing Von Ramm v. Von Ramm, 99 N.C. App. 153, 157, 392 S.E.2d 422, 425 (1990)). Williams only argument regarding Judge Williamson s 7 October 2010 order is as follows: There was no valid reason for the [c]ourt to [d]ismiss [the 2010 action] while there was still pending a Motion for Reconsideration of the Order of Awarding Sanctions and Attorney Fees in the [2008 action]. As of the date of this appeal, there has [sic] still has not been a hearing on [Williams ] Motion for Reconsideration of the Order of Awarding Sanctions and Attorney Fees in the [2008 action]. Therefore this matter must be remanded back to the Superior Court. Williams cites no authority, however, to support her contention that the matter must be remanded because there was no valid reason to support a dismissal of the 2010 action while there is still a pending motion in the 2008 action. Accordingly, this argument is deemed abandoned. N.C. R. App. P. 28(b)(6) ( Issues not presented in a party s brief, or in support of which no reason or argument is stated, will be taken as abandonded. ; The body of the argument . . . shall contain citations of the authorities upon which the appellant relies. ); see also Hope a Women s Cancer Ctr., P.A. v. State, __ N.C. App. __, __, 693 S.E.2d 673, 680 (2010) (declining to consider appellant s contention where no legal authority or argument provided). -9As Williams has not presented any valid arguments on appeal to support reversal of Judge Williamson s 7 October 2010 order dismissing Williams 2010 action, that order is affirmed. DISMISSED and AFFIRMED. Judges ERVIN and BEASLEY concur. Report per Rule 30(e)

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.