STATE OFNORTH CAROLINA. F | Ja © SN-THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE BUNCOMBE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURE BISON, my wr21 A @ 3 FILENO, Bat Oa ‘THE ESTATE OF BARBARA DIANE WALKER HOPPES, BY AND THROUGH THEIADMIRISTRATOR OF HER ESTATE, JONATHAN LEDBETTER, je Plaintift, v. COMPLAINT MH MISSION HOSPITAL, LLLP, Defendant NOW COMES the Plaintiff, The Estate of Barbara Diane Walker Hoppes, by and through the Administrator of her Estate, Jonathan Ledbetter, complaining of the Defendant, alleges and says as follows: 1 Barbara Diane Walker Hoppes (hereafter “Decedent”) died on February 28, 2025, 2 Jonathan Ledbetter, the son of Barbara Diane Walker Hoppes, is the duly appointed Administrator of the Estate of Barbara Diane Walker Hoppes, having been so appointed in Rutherford County, North Carolina by Clerk of Superior Court Steve H. Owens on March 10, 2023, and he is therefore authorized to bring this action pursuant to N.C. Gen, Sta. § 28-182 ‘A copy of the Letters of Administration is attached hereto as Exhibit A 3 Barbara Diane Walker Hoppes (“Decedent”) was a citizen and resident of Rutherford ‘County, North Carolina until her death on February 28, 2023, 4 ‘Administrator Jonathan Ledbetter is a citizen and resident of Rutherford County, North Carolina.s. Defendant is « North Carolina Corporation health care provider authorized and licensed at the times alleged herein to provide medical and healthcare services at its facility in Asheville, ‘North Carolina with its principal place of business in Buncombe County, North Carolin, 6 Atal relevant times alleged inthis Complaint, the Defendant was a health care provider as defined in N.C.GSS, § 90-21.11 required 10 provide the standard of care expressed in N.CGS. §90-21.12, 1 That at all times alleged herein one or more nurses, employees, and agents ofthe Defendant actively participating in the post-operative care of the Decedent as alleged hercin were acting as at all times as agents and/or employees of Defendant within the scope of their agency and/or ‘employment forthe Defendant while providing medical cae to the Decedent 8 On or about February 24, 2023, Ms. Hoppes reported to Mission Hospital for an antetior cervical discectomy and fasion and removal anterior cervieal hardware that was performed by Dr Mark L. Moody together withthe agents and employees ofthe Defendant, 9. On or about February 24, 2023, after the above-described procedure, while recovering on «4 medical-surgieal loor of the Defendant's facility, Ms. Hopes had progressive shortness of breath 10. On or about February 24, 2023, after the above-described procedure, while recovering on ‘a medical-surgical floor ofthe Defendants facility, Ms. Hoppes had dysphagia. u On or about February 24, 2023, after the above-described procedure, while recovering on ‘a medical-surgical floor ofthe Defendants facility, Ms. Hoppes had difficulty swallowing 2. On or about February 24, 2023, after the above-described procedure, while recovering on 1 medical-surgical floor ofthe Defendant's facility, Ms. Hoppes had a sore throat.B. Atorabout 8:50 pm, Ms. Hopes" condition worsened, she became unconscious and went into cardiac atest, A Code Blue was issued to provide resuscitation efforts to Ms. Hoppes 4. Following the resuscitation, a CT of the cervical spine was ordered which revealed large prevertebral hematoma atthe surgical ste which extended down tothe upper thoracic spine. 1s. ‘She was taken back to the operating room on or about February 25, 2023, fora second surgical procedure to evacuate the hematoma, and she was he was intubated and returned tothe Icu, 16. On or about February 26, 2023, neurology was consulted and diagnosed Ms, Hoppes' as suffering ftom likely severe anoxic brain injury status post cardiac arrest. Decedent remained unconscious following the second surgery to evacuate the hematoma. 1. The Devedent’s family was consulted, and a decision was made to withhold extraordinary ‘means of life support, and Decedent died ator about 10:30 pm on February 28, 2023 18, Defendant failed to provide adequate cate within the applicable standard of care post- ‘operatively which allowed the postoperative hematoma from the first surgery by Dr. Moody to enlarge without intervention that ultimately killed the Decedent when she was unable to breathe that directly caused her organs to fail and to suffer from cardiac ares 19. De. Moody had placed Decedent in the cate of the Defendant to monitor Decedent's post ‘operative condition to specifically include observing and monitoring Decedent’s vital signs and airway, 20 Defendant failed to properly monitor, observe, and timely intervene when Decedent's airway became obstructed and allowed her to ‘die from the very surgical complication for which she was placed into the eare ofthe Defendant to prevent24 Earlier timely intervention to treat and remove the hematoma would have very likely been. successful and saved Decedent's life 2, Plaintiff denies thatthe Decedent suffered from an emergency condition as that term in defined in North Carolina Gen Stat 90-21.12(b) a the time of the alleged negligence in question in that the failures ofthe Defendant to natice and intervene as Decedent's health deteriorated took place during a time when prompt care would have reversed her condition. In the altemative, ‘however, Plaintiff alleges that if these circumstances demonstrate an emergency medical condition the Defendant i liable by clear and convincing evidence. 2B, The Plaintif alleges that the liability limit in North Carolina Gea Stat 90-21.19(a) does not apply to the recovery in this case in thatthe Defendants acts or failures which are the direct and proximate cause of Decedent's injuries and death as set forth herein were commited in reckless Aisregard ofthe rights of others and\or were grossly negligent as described in North Carolina Gen Stat 90-21.19(b) 24, Due to negligent care provided by one or more nurses, employees, and agents of the Defendant described herein, the Decedent directly and proximately suffered additional harms, ‘damages and losses from the time of the negligence until ber death, and ultimately her wrongful death for which the Defendant i liable in an amount in excess of $25,000. 25, Plaintiff objects to the provisions of Rule 9{j) of the Noh Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure that require a pre-filing expert opinion in medical malpractice actions. These objections are onthe basis that this Rule requires Plaintiff to prove her ease without the benefit of discovery before factual discovery is even begun. Without waiving these objections, the attomey forthe Plaintiff provides the information below to comply with the requirements of Rule 9G). Pursuant to Rule 9G) ofthe North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, the medical care by Defendant and all ‘medical records pertaining to the alleged negligence that are available to Plaintiff after reasonable inquiry have been reviewed by a person who is reasonably expected to qualify as expert witness under Rule 702 of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence and who is willing to testify thatthe ‘medical care did not comply with the applicable standard of care. In addition, should a Cour later determine that any of the persons who have reviewed the medical care by Defendants do not meet the requirements of Rule 702(b) or 702(c) ofthe NC Rules of Evidence, then Plant will sek to hhave such persons qualified as expert witnesses by motion under Rule 702(e) ofthe NC Rules of Evidence, and Plaintiff moves the Court (as provided in Rule 9G) of the NC Rules of Civil Procedute) that such persons be qualified as expert witnesses under Rule 702(e) of the NC Rules‘of Evidence, in that the expert witnesses” failure to meet the requirements under Rule 702 (b) or (©) is a showing of an extraordinary circumstance, that this Rule 9G)(2) and Rule 702(e) motion should be allowed to serve the ends of justice, and that the medical care by Defendants and all ‘medical records pertaining to the alleged negligence that are available to plimiff after reasonable inquiry have been reviewed by a person who is reasonably expected to qualify as expert witnesses under Rule 702(e) ofthe North Carolina Rules of Evidence and who is willing to testify thatthe ‘medical care did not comply withthe applicable standard of care. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF NEGLIGENCE OF DEFENDANT ‘The allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 25 are re-lleged and incorporated baerein by reference, 26. Defendant, a ll relevant times alleged herein, was a duly licensed healthcare provider in the State of North Carolina that expressly and impliedly represented to the public and to the Plaintiff that it furnished health care ina skilled and proper manner, that its employees and agents and borrowed servants possessed at least the degree of professional learning, skill and ability ‘ordinarily possessed by others similarly situated, and thatthe medical care rendered by Defendant was commensurate with that rendered by other health cate providers similarly situated in the same ‘or similar communi 21, AC all relevant times alleged in this Complaint, Defendant was a health care provider as defined in N.C.GS, § 90-21.11 required to provide the standard of care expressed in N.C.GS. § 90-21.12, 28, ‘That at all relevant times alleged herein, all Defendant's employees and agents and borrowed servants, including, but not limited to medical assistants, registered nurses andlor cettifed nursing assistants were acting within the scope of ther agency and/or employment with Defendant when they individually andlor collectively provided care tothe Decedent during her care at Mission Hospital in Asheville, North Carolina on or about February 24, 2023 as alleged herein. 29, In the medical treatment of Decedent described above, the employees, agents, borrowed servants and other health care providers employed and/or acting within the course of scape oftheir ‘employment and/or agency for Defendant failed to apply to their care of Decedent that degree of skill, care and knowledge required by law for their applicable relationship to Decedent inthe same or similar communities in one oF more of the following way’:‘4 Failed to follow physician's orders post-surgery to adequately and properly monitor the Decedent's condition; b. Failed to contact the Decedent's physician or any hospital physician when the Decedent's condition deteriorated when there was sulficient lime to save the Decedent's life; «. Failed to adequately and properly observe, examine and gather information from the Decedent and to conduct serial examinstions to notice and intervene to prevent and treat her worsening medical condition 4. Failed to recognize and appreciate the Decedent's complaints and condition was evidence of a growing obstruction inher airway that required prompt intervention; «. Failed to property staff the hospital loor with sufficient qualified personnel to provide adequate and timely eare to the Decedent; Failed to either perform andior document Devedent’s condition frequently enough and often enough to realize that Decedent's airway was becoming obstructed; 8 Falsely attributed Decedent's worsening condition to middle-aged anxiety instead ‘of recognizing the growing hematoma obstructing her airways 1, Failed to establish effective loor protocols and safe postsurgical management for ‘nurses, certified nursing assistants, borrowed servants and other personne! for patients following cervical surgery who were placed on the medical-surgical floor for observation; and {Failed in any other way that may be revealed through discovery or til 30. As direct and proximate result of the negligence described above, Barbara Diane Walker Hoppes' condition went undiagnosed, untreated, and was allowed to worsen and eventually resulted in her emotional distress and severe personal injury until her death and the damages of ‘hich Plaintiff complains, and accordingly the Defendant is liable for those damages as allowed by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 284-18-2, or otherwise recoverable by lav. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff prays for relief against the Defendant, as follows: 1, ‘That the Plaintiff have and recover of Defendant a judgment in an amount in excess ‘of $25,000.00 pursuant tothe first claim fr relief 2. The Plaintiff recovers of the Defendant the costs of ths action3. That the judgment bear interest as by law provided, 4. Forsuch other and further relief as to the Court may seem just and proper. This the 21" day of November 2023 Mark R-Melrose ‘Adam R. Melrose ‘Melrose Law, PLLC Attorneys for Plaintitt Post Office Box 567 ‘Waynesville, North Carolina 28786 (828) 452-3141 Telephone (828) 246.6221 FacsimileEXHIBIT a STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA —— a Tn The General Onur OF ution UTHERFORD Gun Sear Caton ‘THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF: ‘BARBARA DIANE WALKER HOPPES. LETTERS (OF ADMINISTRNTION “The Gout inthe exerci of is juricion of probate of wile and he adransvaton of esas, nd van appt of ‘he cay, ae edged legal sen! he guaeaton ote fsa nares below and drs ht ets be ‘Sicedin he abov0 esata ‘The aay uty authorzea bythe laus of Nar Calin to recive and acini al of th ase belonging ta the estas and hae eters reins ote fo that author ae cry thats naw tl ace nd tac Wiss my hand and the Seal of he Supeie Cou “SONATHAN LEDBETTER fas $= $e ——___ 221 SHEPARDS CREEK CIRCLE reer (jumuearonproy Ne_28199 STEVEN.OWENS UNISTRATOR ‘EX OFFICIO JUDGE OF PROBATE trons Ba omayese Clammicss — Clewraonircn NOTE: This eter le nt valid without thefts! of the ler of Super Curt