(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, in any medical malpractice action as defined in G.S. 90-21.11(2)(a), the defendant health care provider shall not be liable for the payment of damages unless the trier of fact finds by the greater weight of the evidence that the care of such health care provider was not in accordance with the standards of practice among members of the same health care profession with similar training and experience situated in the same or similar communities under the same or similar circumstances at the time of the alleged act giving rise to the cause of action; or in the case of a medical malpractice action as defined in G.S. 90-21.11(2)(b), the defendant health care provider shall not be liable for the payment of damages unless the trier of fact finds by the greater weight of the evidence that the action or inaction of such health care provider was not in accordance with the standards of practice among similar health care providers situated in the same or similar communities under the same or similar circumstances at the time of the alleged act giving rise to the cause of action.
(b) In any medical malpractice action arising out of the furnishing or the failure to furnish professional services in the treatment of an emergency medical condition, as the term "emergency medical condition" is defined in 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd(e)(1)(A), the claimant must prove a violation of the standards of practice set forth in subsection (a) of this section by clear and convincing evidence. (1975, 2nd Sess., c. 977, s. 4; 2011-283, s. 4.1(a); 2011-400, s. 6.)
§ 90-21.12A. Nonresident physicians.
A patient may bring a medical malpractice claim in the courts of this State against a nonresident physician who practices medicine or surgery by use of any electronic or other media in this State. (1997-514, s. 2.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
158
cases (
21 in the last 5 years), 1980–2026 · leading case:
Crocker v. Roethling, 675 S.E.2d 625 (N.C. 2009).
Crocker v. Roethling, 675 S.E.2d 625 (N.C. 2009).
· cites it 136× “In this medical malpractice case, we consider whether the trial court properly excluded plaintiffs' expert and granted summary judgment for defendants when the expert's opinions of his familiarity with the community at issue and of defendants' breach of the standard of care…”
Henry v. Se. Ob-Gyn Assocs., P.A., 550 S.E.2d 245 (N.C. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 76× “N.C. Gen.Stat. § 90-21.12 prescribes the relevant standard of care in a medical malpractice action: In any action for damages for personal injury or death arising out of the furnishing or the failure to furnish professional services in the performance of medical .”
Pitts v. Nash Day Hosp., Inc., 605 S.E.2d 154 (N.C. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 44× “Strickland was familiar with the standard of care in Rocky Mount or a similar community, as required by N.C. Gen.Stat. § 90-21.12 (2003). The trial court allowed plaintiff to reopen Dr.”
Swink v. Weintraub, 672 S.E.2d 53 (N.C. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 34× “Defendants’ principal contention as to the trial is that the trial court erred in admitting opinion testimony from plaintiff’s medical experts as to whether defendants exercised reasonable care and diligence and used their best judgment without requiring the experts to testify,…”
Bailey v. Jones, 435 S.E.2d 787 (N.C. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 24× “N.C.Gen.Stat. § 90-21.12, enacted in 1975, provides: In any action for damages for personal injury or death arising out of the furnishing or the failure to furnish professional services in the performance of medical, dental, or other health care, the defendant shall not be…”
Barringer v. Forsyth Cnty. Wake Forest Univ. Baptist Med. Ctr, 677 S.E.2d 465 (N.C. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 10× “N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-21.12 (2005). When plaintiffs have introduced evidence from an expert stating that the defendant doctor did not meet the accepted medical standard, “[t]he evidence forecast by the plaintiffs establishes a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the…”
Coffman v. Roberson, 571 S.E.2d 255 (N.C. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 9× “Horner and Otto “on the ground that these physicians were not familiar with the community standard” as required by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-21.12 . We disagree.”
Mozingo Ex Rel. Thomas v. Pitt Cnty. Mem'l Hosp., Inc., 400 S.E.2d 747 (N.C. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 13× “2d at 204 (affiants in support of defendant's motion "averred that they were familiar with the standards of practice" and that defendant acted accordingly); N.C.G.S. § 90-21.12; see also Wall, 310 N.”
Robinson v. Duke Univ. Health Sys., Inc., 747 S.E.2d 321 (N.C. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 13× “To meet their burden of proving the applicable standard of care, plaintiffs must satisfy the requirements of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-21.12 (2011), which provides: [I]n any medical malpractice action as defined in G.”
Purvis v. Moses H. Cone Mem'l Hosp. Serv. Corp., 624 S.E.2d 380 (N.C. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 8× “N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-21.12 sets forth the standard of care in a medical malpractice case: In any action for damages for personal injury or death arising out of the furnishing or the failure to furnish professional services in the performance of medical, dental, or other health…”
Leatherwood v. Ehlinger, 564 S.E.2d 883 (N.C. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 10× “Defendant’s Breach of the Applicable Standard of Care The guidelines for establishing the applicable standard of care in a medical malpractice action are set forth in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-21.12 , which provides in pertinent part: The defendant shall not be liable for the payment…”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-21.12(a) — 8 cases
Robinson v. Duke Univ. Health Sys., Inc., 747 S.E.2d 321 (N.C. Ct. App. 2013).
“To meet their burden of proving the applicable standard of care, plaintiffs must satisfy the requirements of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-21.12 (2011), which provides: [I]n any medical malpractice action as defined in G.”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-21.12(b) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.