First Healthcare Corp. v. Rettinger

456 S.E.2d 347 (1995)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

First Healthcare Corp. v. Rettinger

North Carolina Court of Appeals
456 S.E.2d 347 (1995)

Facts

Lawrence Rettinger, who suffered from Parkinson’s disease, executed a living will stating that he did not want his life to be prolonged by extraordinary means if his condition was terminal and incurable. Lawrence was placed in the Winston-Salem Convalescent Center (center) (plaintiff), and a copy of Lawrence’s living will was put on file. Lawrence was transferred to a hospital, where doctors inserted a nasogastric tube to treat Lawrence for pneumonia. After Lawrence returned to the center, Lawrence’s wife, Nell Rettinger (defendant), was informed that Lawrence’s condition was irreversible and incurable. The center refused Nell’s request to remove the tube based on a policy of not removing a nasogastric tube if doing so would lead the patient to starve or dehydrate to death. On June 25, 1991, Lawrence’s attending physician, Dr. Frederic Romm, signed a form from Lawrence’s attorney affirming Romm’s determination that Lawrence’s condition was terminal and incurable and that Romm had ordered the removal of the tube (the form). On September 12, 1991, a judge, finding that a second doctor had confirmed Romm’s determinations regarding Lawrence’s condition, ordered the tube to be removed. The tube was removed on October 5, and Lawrence died on October 22. The center sued Nell for payment for services rendered to Lawrence from June 26, 1991, to October 22, 1991. Nell argued that had the nasogastric tube been removed on June 26, 1991, Lawrence would have died, so she should not be responsible to pay for services provided following that date. The center, arguing that Romm never told the center to remove the tube, submitted an affidavit by Romm stating that he never sent the form to the center and that his findings regarding Lawrence’s condition were never confirmed by another physician. The judge granted summary judgment for the center.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Eagles, J.)

Dissent (Walker, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership