² The North Carolina General Assembly has elected the option under the federal Medicaid statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(m), to provide Medicaid to aged, blind and disabled persons with incomes under 100% of the federal poverty level. This category of Medicaid is known as categorically needy coverage for the aged, blind and disabled (MABD-CN). 3. The income limit for MABD-CN varies by the number of persons considered by the agency to be in the household unit because the federal poverty line varies by household size.

⁴ The DHHS Medicaid rule at issue in this case is contained in Section 2260 of the DHHS Adult Medicaid Manual. Under this provision, only the aged, blind or 2The dissenting judge at the Court of Appeals noted that although the order was entered on 18 March 2016, he was going to refer to the order as the 17 March 2016 order because that was how the parties had been referring to it. Pachas, ___ N.C. at ___, 814 S.E.2d at 142 n.6 (Hunter Jr., J., dissenting).

⁶ According to 42 U.S.C. § 1396n(c)(3), DHHS is allowed to waive the State Plan requirements for income and resource rules under 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(m) that the Court considered in the March 17, 2016 Order.

⁷ DHHS does not consider the “size of the family involved” when determining an individual’s deductible under the CAP/DA waiver.

⁸ Therefore, the Order signed on March 17, 2016 does not apply to Petitioner’s Medicaid eligibility under the CAP/DA waiver.

⁹ Petitioner must resort to the administrative process governed by N.C.G.S. § 108A-79 to appeal the February 14, 2017 decision issued by the Mecklenburg County DSS. Following this last order, Julissa Pachas filed a motion on 9 May 2017 to substitute herself as petitioner in the case because Carlos died on 17 April. After being substituted as petitioner, Julissa Pachas appealed the superior court’s 21 April 2017 order to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, where she presented the issue of whether “42 U.S.C. § 1396a(m) require[s] respondent/appellee DHHS to determine eligibility for Medicaid for the aged, blind and disabled in North Carolina based on a ‘family of the size involved,’ regardless of what Medicaid services the aged, blind or disabled person requests or receives.” The Court of Appeals majority affirmed the 21 April 2017 order of the Superior Court in Mecklenburg County dismissing petitioner’s motion and petition based on its conclusion that the trial court lacked jurisdiction. Pachas, ___ N.C. App. at ___, 814 S.E.2d at 140. The Court of Appeals reached this decision for two reasons. First, in relying on a previous decision from our Court, the Court of Appeals concluded that “[t]he scope of this waiver provision [under 42 U.S.C. § 1396n(c)], and whether the State in fact applied for and received a waiver of the income limits provision, involve facts and legal questions that were not ‘actually presented and necessarily involved’ in the trial court’s [17 March 2016] order addressing traditional Medicaid coverage.” Id. at ___, 814 S.E.2d at 139 (quoting Tenn.-Carolina Transp., Inc. v. Strick Corp., 286 N.C. 235, 239, 210 S.E.2d 181, 183 (1974)). Specifically, the Court of Appeals majority reasoned that: Here, the trial court properly concluded that the agency’s determination of Pachas’s CAP/DA program eligibility involved different facts and legal issues than the traditional Medicaid benefits at issue in its first order. As the trial court observed, its first order instructed the State to “reinstate Petitioner’s Medicaid eligibility through the North Carolina Medicaid State Plan pursuant to the controlling federal statutory provision, 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(m).” Id. at ___, 814 S.E.2d at 139. The Court of Appeals majority determined that the introduction of these different facts and issues deprived the trial court of the supervisory authority and jurisdiction that it generally maintains under Rule 70 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure to ensure that an agency complies with the court’s order. Id. at ___, 814 S.E.2d at 139-40. As a result, the majority concluded that “[t]he trial court lacks jurisdiction to review the legal and factual issues raised in this appeal until they reach the court through exhaustion of the administrative review process and a petition for judicial review.” Id. at ___, 814 S.E.2d at 140. Second, the Court of Appeals majority concluded that the trial court did not have jurisdiction over petitioner’s motion and petition because petitioner could not demonstrate that the administrative review process was “futile” or “inadequate.” Id. at ___, 814 S.E.2d at 140. Specifically, the majority reasoned that “[a]lthough the agency seems convinced of its legal position, that does not make the administrative review process ‘futile’ or ‘inadequate’ as those terms are defined by law.” Id. at ___, 814 S.E.2d at 140 (citing Huang, 107 N.C. App. at 715, 421 S.E.2d at 815-16). Presumably as a result of its holding that the trial court did not have jurisdiction over petitioner’s motion and petition, the Court of Appeals majority did not announce a holding with regard to the ultimate issue that petitioner presented on appeal: “Does 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(m) require respondent/appellee DHHS to determine eligibility for Medicaid for the aged, blind and disabled in North Carolina based on a ‘family of the size involved,’ regardless of what Medicaid services the aged, blind or disabled person requests or receives?” Id. at ___, 814 S.E.2d at 140 (affirming the trial court’s dismissal of petitioner’s motion and petition only because the trial court lacked jurisdiction). The dissenting judge at the Court of Appeals disagreed with the majority’s decision that the trial court did not have jurisdiction over petitioner’s motion and petition and that petitioner would have to exhaust his administrative remedies before seeking judicial review. Id. at ___, 814 S.E.2d at 140 (Hunter Jr., J., dissenting). The dissenting judge concluded that the trial court did have jurisdiction over petitioner’s motion and petition for two reasons. First, the dissenting judge noted that “Pachas is correct that it is well settled the ‘exhaustion requirement may be excused if the administrative remedy would be futile or inadequate.’ ” Id. at ___, 814 S.E.2d at 145 (quoting Justice for Animals, Inc. v. Robeson County., 164 N.C. App. 366, 372, 595 S.E.2d 773, 777 (2004)). The dissenting judge reasoned that petitioner’s administrative remedy here would be futile and inadequate because: Given the tragic history of Pachas, I cannot vote to place him, or others similarly situated, back in the hands of the Medicaid bureaucracy, which has already denied benefits on the identical question of family size and its relation to required deductibles for Medicaid coverage. In my view, it is particularly telling that in the first case, the law of his case was based upon the conclusion that the State had made an error of law in denying him benefits. To tell a dying indigent that he or his family must endure another round of “administrative remedies”, when the Medicaid authorities moved him from one program to another for their own cost benefits, and when the issue is a matter of law, which had been previously adjudicated, is simply unjust and wrong. Under the specific facts of this case, I would hold requiring the dying indigent to exhaust his administrative remedies would be futile. Id. at ___, 814 S.E.2d at 145. Second, the dissenting judge reasoned that the trial court had jurisdiction over petitioner’s motion and petition because although N.C.G.S. § 108A-79 provides an administrative “remedy for individuals who wish to challenge the termination of their Medicaid coverage,” petitioner here “is not simply challenging the Medicaid coverage termination, but, rather, the violation of the trial court’s 17 March 2016 order requiring DHHS to apply his family size to income considerations. Specifically, this is an appeal for enforcement.” Id. at ___, 814 S.E.2d at 145. The dissenting judge added that “[a] trial court’s authority encompasses the power to enforce its own judgments.” Id. at ___, 814 S.E.2d at 145 (first citing Sturgill v. Sturgill, 49 N.C. App. 580, 587, 272 S.E.2d 423, 428-29 (1980); and then citing Parker v. Parker, 13 N.C. App. 616, 618, 186 S.E.2d 607, 608 (1972)). Petitioner filed his notice of appeal based on the dissent in the Court of Appeals presenting the following issue: “Did the Court of Appeals majority err as a matter of law in ruling that the superior court lacked jurisdiction to decide whether its previous order was violated because petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies before moving to enforce the court’s order?” II. Analysis We conclude that the Court of Appeals did err in ruling that the superior court lacked jurisdiction to decide whether DHHS violated the 17 March 2016 order. Because we so conclude, we vacate the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the trial court’s dismissal of petitioner’s motion and petition on that basis. We also remand this case to the Court of Appeals to address the merits of whether the superior court erred in determining that DHHS did not violate the 17 March 2016 order because DHHS allegedly obtained a waiver of the requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(m) in compliance with 42 U.S.C. § 1396n(c). Because we conclude that the trial court had jurisdiction over petitioner’s motion and petition, we need not determine whether exhaustion of administrative remedies was inadequate or futile in this case. The Court of Appeals erred in concluding that the trial court did not have jurisdiction over petitioner’s motion and petition because: (1) trial courts have jurisdiction to find new facts and determine whether a party has been “disobedient” under a court order requiring the party to perform a “specific act,” N.C. R. Civ. P. 70, and (2) the Court of Appeals relied on an inapposite case from our Court to conclude that, because the issue of petitioner’s CAP-DA eligibility involved “facts and legal questions that were not ‘actually presented and necessarily involved’ ” in the 17 March 2016 order, Pachas, ___ N.C. App. at ___, 814 S.E.2d at 139 (majority opinion) (quoting Tenn.-Carolina Transp., 286 N.C. at 239, 210 S.E.2d at 183), the trial court did not have jurisdiction over the matter. This Court reviews a decision of the Court of Appeals to determine whether it contains any errors of law. N.C. R. App. P. 16(a); State v. Mumford, 364 N.C. 394, 398, 699 S.E.2d 911, 914 (2010); see also State v. Brooks, 337 N.C. 132, 149, 446 S.E.2d 579, 590 (1994) (explaining that this is the standard of review of a determination by the Court of Appeals whether the case is before us “by appeal of right or discretionary review” (first citing State v. Colson, 274 N.C. 295, 163 S.E.2d 376 (1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1087, 89 S. Ct. 876, 21 L. Ed. 2d 780 (1969); then citing State v. Williams, 274 N.C. 328, 163 S.E.2d 353 (1968); and then citing N.C. R. App. P. 16(a)(1994))). A. The trial court had jurisdiction under the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule 70) to find new facts and determine whether DHHS disobeyed the 17 March 2016 order. It is well settled that, consistent with their inherent authority to enforce their own orders, North Carolina trial courts have jurisdiction to find new facts and determine whether a party has been “disobedient” under a previous order that required the party to perform a “specific act.” N.C. R. Civ. P. 70. Since 1967 the Rules of Civil Procedure have provided in part: If a judgment directs a party to execute a conveyance of land or to deliver deeds or other documents or to perform any other specific act and the party fails to comply within the time specified, the judge may direct the act to be done at the cost of the disobedient party by some other person appointed by the judge and the act when so done has like effect as if done by the party. On application of the party entitled to performance, the clerk shall issue a writ of attachment or sequestration against the property of the disobedient party to compel obedience to the judgment. The judge may also in proper cases adjudge the party in contempt. N.C. R. Civ. P. 70. Here it appears that DHHS’s decision to cancel petitioner’s Medicaid benefits under the CAP-DA program and require him to pay a deductible to regain eligibility invoked the trial court’s power to enforce its 17 March 2016 order.3 In that order the superior court instructed DHHS “to promptly reinstate Medicaid benefits to Petitioner . . . and to continue providing Medicaid to Petitioner until determined ineligible under the rules as modified according to this decision.” The rules as modified by the order required that petitioner be considered eligible for Medicaid under the Categorically Needy category so long as his income did not exceed one hundred percent of the federal poverty level based on a family of six while he was providing more one-half of their financial support. It appears, according to DHHS’s own Adult Medicaid Manual and without considering any effect of the waiver that DHHS allegedly obtained, that petitioner— having been determined to fit within the Categorically Needy eligibility group and to be entitled to continued Medicaid benefits under the 17 March 2016 order—should have seamlessly qualified on 14 February 2017 for Medicaid’s CAP-DA program without a deductible. Specifically, even DHHS’s waiver application pursuant to 42 3 We do not express an opinion on the merits of the waiver issue we are remanding to the Court of Appeals. U.S.C. § 1396n(c) lists “Categorically Needy” individuals as a Medicaid-eligible group that will be served by the CAP-DA program. Furthermore, DHHS’s own manual provides that DHHS will “[d]etermine eligibility [for CAP-DA] according to requirements for the appropriate aid program/category.” Medicaid Eligibility Unit, Div. of Med. Assistance, N.C. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., Aged, Blind and Disabled Medicaid Manual, MA-2280 ¶ III.A.a.(2) (Oct. 1, 2012) titled “Medicaid Eligibility and CAP Eligibility.” Moreover, DHHS’s manual states that “[w]hen Medicaid eligibility can be established regardless of eligibility for CAP,” DHHS will “not wait for CAP approval” and it will “[a]uthorize [CAP-DA], if appropriate, as for any other applicant.” Id. MA-2280 ¶ III.A.a.2(c)(1)-(2). Additionally, DHHS’s own manual indicates that “Categorically Needy” Medicaid recipients will not be charged a deductible. See id. MA-2360 ¶ I (Nov. 1, 2011) (providing that the deductible requirement is only to be applied to Medically Needy Medicaid recipients and “[t]he policy in this section may not be used to find a client eligible in MAABD Categorically Needy – No Money Payment (N) Classification . . . . Deductible does not apply in these coverage’s [sic]”). We conclude that—because the 17 March 2016 order determined that petitioner was to continue receiving Medicaid benefits under the “Categorically Needy” eligibility group until he was determined to be ineligible under the rules as modified by that order—DHHS’s decision to terminate petitioner’s Medicaid benefits under the CAP-DA program on 14 February 2017 and require him to meet a deductible before he could regain his benefits squarely raises the issue of whether DHHS acted as a “disobedient party” under the 17 March 2016 order. N.C. R. Civ. P. 70. DHHS contends that it did not disobey the 17 March 2016 order, and that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to enforce that order, because the waiver that it allegedly obtained under 42 U.S.C. § 1396n(c) allowed it to create different eligibility rules for the CAP-DA program. Without reaching any conclusions as to the merits of this argument, we hold that the trial court, in accord with its jurisdiction to find new facts and determine whether a party has been “disobedient” under a previous order directing the party to perform a “specific act,” was authorized to determine the precise issue of whether the waiver that DHHS allegedly obtained under 42 U.S.C. § 1396n(c) allowed the agency to comply with the 17 March 2016 order while terminating petitioner’s Medicaid benefits under the CAP-DA program on 14 February 2017 and requiring him to pay a deductible before qualifying again for Medicaid. Our conclusion that the trial court had authority to determine that issue is further supported by the Administrative Procedure Act (the Act) itself. The language of the Act suggests that the General Assembly contemplated that trial courts would have such jurisdiction to enforce their own court orders against disobedient agencies upon motion from a party in the case. Specifically, the Act provides that “[n]othing in this Chapter shall prevent any party or person aggrieved from invoking any judicial remedy available to the party or person aggrieved under the law to test the validity of any administrative action not made reviewable under this Article.” N.C.G.S. § 150B-43 (2017) (emphases added). Here the relevant judicial remedy available to petitioner under the law is enforcement of the trial court’s 17 March 2016 order. Neither the Act, nor N.C.G.S. § 108A-79 which governs public assistance and social services appeals, provide for administrative review of DHHS’s alleged violation of the 17 March 2016 order. See id. § 108A-79 (2017) (making no mention that the agency appeals process will consider whether the agency violated a court order during either the local appeal hearing, or the hearing before DHHS, or when rendering the final agency decision); see also id. § 108A-79(k) (2017) (stating that the judicial review at the superior court “shall be conducted according to the provisions of Article 4, Chapter 150B, of the North Carolina General Statutes”); see also id. § 150B-51(b)(1)-(6) (2017) (not including violation of a court order as grounds upon which a trial court can “reverse or modify” a final decision of the agency); but see id. § 150B-51(d) (2017) (allowing a trial court to enter certain orders when it reviews “a final [agency] decision allowing judgment on the pleadings or summary judgment”). Because the trial court had jurisdiction to find new facts in order to determine whether DHHS was a disobedient party under its 17 March 2016 order, we conclude that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the trial court no longer had jurisdiction over the case given the new factual and legal issues regarding the effect of DHHS’s alleged waiver under 42 U.S.C. § 1396n(c). B. The Court of Appeals relied on inapposite authority in limiting the trial court’s jurisdiction under the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule 70). The Court of Appeals majority relied on our decision in Tennessee-Carolina Transportation, Inc. v. Strick Corp. for the principle that a “trial court’s authority [under the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule 70)] to supervise the agency’s actions extends only to issues ‘actually presented and necessarily involved in determining the case.’ ” Pachas, ___ N.C. App. at ___, 814 S.E.2d at 139 (quoting Tenn.-Carolina Transp., 286 N.C. at 239, 210 S.E.2d at 183). The Court of Appeals majority then stated, “In other words, the trial court’s continuing jurisdiction applies to issues involving ‘the same facts and the same questions, which were determined in the previous appeal.’ ” Id. at ___, 814 S.E.2d at 139 (emphasis added) (quoting Tenn.-Carolina Transp., 286 N.C. at 239, 210 S.E.2d at 183)). The Court of Appeals majority then applied the above principle to the facts here and concluded that the trial court did not have jurisdiction over petitioner’s motion and petition, and that petitioner would have to exhaust his administrative remedies, because “[t]he scope of [the 42 U.S.C. § 1396n(c)] waiver provision, and whether the State in fact applied for and received a waiver of the income limits provision, involve facts and legal questions that were not ‘actually presented and necessarily involved’ in the trial court's order addressing traditional Medicaid coverage.” Id. at ___, 814 S.E.2d at 139 (quoting Tenn.-Carolina Transp., 286 N.C. at 239, 210 S.E.2d at 183). We conclude that the Court of Appeals erred in relying on Tennessee-Carolina Transportation for the proposition that a trial court’s jurisdiction under the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule 70) to ensure that an agency complies with the court’s order necessarily ends when new facts and legal issues arise that were not “actually presented and necessarily involved” in the previous order. Id. at ___, 814 S.E.2d at 139 (quoting Tenn.-Carolina Transp., 286 N.C. at 239, 210 S.E.2d at 183). The Tennessee-Carolina Transportation case involved application of the “law of the case” doctrine; it did not involve a motion to enforce a court order as we have here. See Tenn.-Carolina Transp., 286 N.C. at 238-39, 210 S.E.2d at 183-84). The issue in Tennessee-Carolina Transportation was whether a decision we made in a former appeal in that case, in which we determined that Pennsylvania law governed the action, continued to apply. See id. at 238-39, 210 S.E.2d at 183-84. We concluded that the decision in the former appeal did continue to govern the case because “[t]he decision by the Supreme Court on a prior appeal constitutes the law of the case, both in subsequent proceedings in the trial court and on a subsequent appeal.” Id. at 239, 210 S.E.2d at 183. The full passage from Tennessee-Carolina Transportation which the Court of Appeals majority quotes only in part as authority for its rule, reads as follows: As a general rule, when an appellate court passes on questions and remands the case for further proceedings to the trial court, the questions therein actually presented and necessarily involved in determining the case, and the decision on those questions become the law of the case, both in subsequent proceedings in the trial court and on a subsequent appeal, provided the same facts and the same questions, which were determined in the previous appeal, are involved in the second appeal. Id. at 239, 210 S.E.2d at 183 (emphases added) (quoting Collins v. Simms, 257 N.C. 1, 11, 125 S.E.2d 298, 305 (1962) (Parker, J., concurring in the result)); see also Pachas, ___ N.C. App. at ___, 814 S.E.2d at 139. Because Tennessee-Carolina Transportation involved the doctrine of the law of the case—and did not involve a motion to enforce a court order, which is the issue here—the Court of Appeals majority erred in relying on that case to limit the scope of the trial court’s jurisdiction under the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule 70). III. Conclusion We vacate the Court of Appeals’ decision concluding that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to consider whether DHHS violated the trial court’s previous order. Accordingly, we remand to the Court of Appeals to address DHHS’s argument that the agency did not violate the 17 March 2016 order because it allegedly obtained a waiver under 42 U.S.C. § 1396n(c), permitting it to create its own rules for CAP-DA eligibility apart from the requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(m). Because we conclude that the trial court had jurisdiction over petitioner’s motion and petition, we need not determine whether exhaustion of administrative remedies was inadequate or futile here. VACATED AND REMANDED. Justice EARLS did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.