A unanimous three-judge panel of the N.C. Court of Appeals affirmed this morning a decision against adult-care home operators who had challenged a settlement between the state and a competitor. Adult care homes are now subject to the state’s Certificate of Need law, but a series of earlier court cases and legal settlements allowed Carillon Assisted Living to proceed with a number of adult care homes across the state without facing the CON process. The appellate judges upheld those earlier agreements.

In other opinions released this morning:

  • A unanimous three-judge panel vacated a trial court’s order in a lawsuit challenging proposed changes in North Carolina’s Medicaid Personal Care Services program. The appellate panel says legislative changes in 2010 made the lawsuit is moot. The Association for Home and Hospice Care had challenged changes stemming from the 2009 state budget bill, but appellate judges ruled that another bill passed the following year addressed the issues raised in the legal dispute.
  • A unanimous three-judge panel sent a Kinston annexation dispute back to a trial court because judges ruled that the city had violated the law in setting the boundary for its annexation area. The appellate judges upheld the rest of the trial court’s ruling, which favored Kinston.
  • A unanimous three-judge panel affirmed a lower court ruling favoring Durham County in an easement dispute near the Little River.
  • A unanimous three-judge panel affirmed a lower court ruling blocking Randolph County homeowners from suing Thomasville in neighboring Davidson County over damage caused by a backed-up sewer line.
  • A unanimous three-judge panel affirmed a lower court ruling against workers who sued their former union for violations of the state’s Identity Theft Protection Act because a union official posted their names and Social Security numbers on a bulletin board. The N.C. Business Court ruled that the National Labor Relations Act preempted the state lawsuit.
  • A unanimous three-judge panel reversed a lower court ruling in a Pender County church dispute. One set of church leaders in the case had argued successfully at the trial court level that a judge would violate the First Amendment by ruling in the dispute over church governance, but the appellate judges rejected the argument and allowed the suit from other church leaders to proceed.
  • A unanimous three-judge panel affirmed a lower court ruling that the child of a passenger killed in a 2008 drunk driving accident in New Hanover County could not collect damages from the estate of the 20-year-old driver, who also died in the wreck. Lawyers working on the child’s behalf had relied on a law that’s designed to help victims sue the businesses that serve alcohol to underage drinkers.