Preston v. Movahed

Summary

The Supreme Court of North Carolina considered whether a medical malpractice complaint complied with North Carolina Rule of Civil Procedure 9(j). The Court held that, viewing disputed or ambiguous evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the record showed that the plaintiff’s expert was willing to testify that the defendant breached the applicable standard of care and that the plaintiff reasonably expected the expert to qualify. The Court reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded for further proceedings.

Holdings

1. When a defendant challenges a facially valid Rule 9(j) certification under Rule 12(b)(6), the trial court must examine the facts and circumstances known or that should have been known to the pleader at filing and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party when the forecasted evidence is reasonably disputed or ambiguous.
2. The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, demonstrated that Dr. Toporoff was willing at the time of filing the second complaint to testify that Dr. Movahed breached the applicable standard of care as a cardiologist interpreting the treadmill stress test and EKG recordings and communicating those results.
3. Plaintiff reasonably expected Dr. Toporoff to qualify under Rule 702(b) to testify concerning the standard of care applicable to treadmill stress tests and EKG recordings, even though he was not a nuclear cardiologist.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court and Court of Appeals applied the proper framework and standard of review in determining that plaintiff's Rule 9(j) certification was unsupported by the evidence.
2. Whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, Dr. Toporoff was willing at the time of filing to testify that Dr. Movahed breached the applicable standard of care.
3. Whether plaintiff reasonably expected Dr. Toporoff to qualify as an expert under North Carolina Rule of Evidence 702(b).

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded