Abstract
This note will examine the North Carolina Court of Appeals' decision in Anderson v. Assimos. Part II of the note presents the factual background, the issue raised, and the holding in the Anderson decision. Part III analyzes the decision and discusses why the court's holding is correct. This note concludes that the North Carolina Supreme Court should hold that Rule 9(j) unconstitutionally infringes upon rights guaranteed by both the federal and state constitutions if asked to addresses the issue in the future.
Recommended Citation
LeVonda Wood, Rule 9(j) - Is Requiring a Plaintiff in a Medical Malpractice Action to Certify His or Her Claim Before Filing Unconstitutional? - The Issue in Anderson v. Assimos, 25 Campbell L. Rev. 219 (2003).
COinS