Volume 144 — North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports

<bold>1. Appeal and Error — appealability — denial of dispositive</bold> <bold>motions — governmental immunity</bold> <block_quote> The denial of dispositive motions that are grounded on governmental immunity affect a substantial right and are immediately appealable.</block_quote> <bold>2. Pleadings — amendment denied — undue delay</bold> <block_quote> The trial court did not err in a negligence action arising from the death of an inmate by denying defendants' motions to amend their pleadings to include a governmental immunity defense more than one year after the complaint was filed and the court denied the motion because it would create undue delay.</block_quote> <bold>3. Pleadings; Immunity — negligence action — motion for</bold> <bold>judgment on the pleadings — public official immunity</bold> <block_quote> The trial court did not err in a negligence action arising from the death of an inmate by denying motions by defendants, health-care providers at Central Prison, for judgment on the pleadings and to dismiss on the grounds of public official immunity where all of the essential elements of negligence were alleged; plaintiff intended to sue defendants in their individual capacities, as indicated by the complaint and the course of the proceedings; and defendants did not claim public official immunity because the court denied their motions to amend. Plaintiff, suing defendants in their individual capacities, alleged negligent conduct which defendants denied with factual issues still in dispute.</block_quote>

<bold>Termination of Parental Rights — permanency planning hearing</bold> <bold>— error to cease reunification efforts</bold> <block_quote> The trial court erred in a permanency planning hearing by directing the Department of Social Services (DSS) to cease reunification efforts between respondent mother and her minor child, because: (1) every witness at the hearing testified that respondent had done everything she was required to do by the court and DSS to be reunited with her child including attending every class, paying child support, attending scheduled visits with her child, acknowledging her responsibilities, recognizing her errors, and appearing to learn from her mistakes; (2) there is no evidence that the trial court ever found that respondent inflicted the injuries which lead to her child's removal from the home; (3) with the exception of the guardian ad litem, every person whom the court assigned to assess respondent concluded that respondent had made substantial progress towards turning her life around; and (4) DSS recommended that it was in the child's best interest that the goal remain reunification of mother and daughter.</block_quote>

<bold>1. Workers' Compensation — occupational disease —</bold> <bold>coccidioidomycosis — increased exposure than general public</bold> <block_quote> The Industrial Commission did not err by awarding plaintiff truck driver workers' compensation benefits for an occupational disease under N.C.G.S. § <cross_reference>97-53</cross_reference> for his contraction of coccidioidomycosis<page_number>Page 343</page_number> and finding that plaintiff's work as a truck driver required him to travel to California where he had an increased risk of being exposed to the disease compared to the general public, because: (1) the term "general public" pertains to the general public of North Carolina; and (2) coccidioidomycosis is not generally contracted in North Carolina.</block_quote> <bold>2. Workers' Compensation — occupational disease —</bold> <bold>coccidioidomycosis — exposure during course and scope of</bold> <bold>employment</bold> <block_quote> The Industrial Commission did not err by concluding that there was competent evidence to support its finding that plaintiff truck driver likely was exposed to the occupational disease of coccidioidomycosis in October 1991 while in the course and scope of his employment, because: (1) the fungus is not present in the soil in North Carolina but solely in the southwestern United States, including California where plaintiff's employer required him to carry goods; and (2) although it is possible to be exposed to the spores and have asymptomatic infection which might not become symptomatic until one to three weeks later, plaintiff did not visit his brother who lives in Arizona during his trips in October 1991.</block_quote>