IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA
No. COA15-879-2
Filed: 21 November 2017
N.C. Industrial Commission, I.C. No. U00070
IN THE MATTER OF HOUSE, Claim for Compensation Under the North Carolina
Eugenics Asexualization and Sterilization Compensation Program, Claimant-
Appellant.
Appeal by Claimant-Appellant House from amended decision and order
entered 11 May 2015 by the North Carolina Industrial Commission. Heard originally
in the Court of Appeals 30 November 2015, and opinion filed 16 February 2016.
Petition for discretionary review was allowed by the North Carolina Supreme Court
for the limited purpose of reversing the Court of Appeals’ dismissal of Claimant’s
“constitutional claim.” The case was remanded to the Court of Appeals for expedited
consideration of Claimant’s “constitutional claim” on the merits.
The Bollinger Law Firm, PC, by Bobby L. Bollinger, Jr., for Claimant-
Appellant.
Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Assistant Attorney General Marc X.
Sneed, for North Carolina Department of Justice, Tort Claims Section.
McGEE, Chief Judge.
The North Carolina Industrial Commission (“the Industrial Commission”)
found that Ms. House (“Claimant”) was involuntarily sterilized on 27 November 1974.
This matter was first decided by this Court on 16 February 2016. In re House, __
IN RE HOUSE
Opinion of the Court
N.C. App. __, 782 S.E.2d 115 (2016) (“House I”).1 We held in House I that Claimant
could not demonstrate that she was a qualified recipient of the Eugenics
Asexualization and Sterilization Compensation Program, based upon the following:
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143B–426.50(5) sets forth two
requirements that must be proven before a claimant may
be considered a qualified recipient: (1) the claimant must
have been involuntarily sterilized “under the authority of
the Eugenics Board of North Carolina,” and (2) the
claimant must have been involuntarily sterilized in
accordance with the procedures as set forth in “Chapter
224 of the Public Laws of 1933 or Chapter 221 of the Public
Laws of 1937.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143B–426.50(5). In the
present case, unfortunately, Claimant cannot show that
either of these requirements has been met.
There is no record evidence that the Eugenics Board was
ever informed of Claimant’s involuntary sterilization, nor
that it was consulted in the matter in any way. Because
the language of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143B–426.50(5) is clear,
“there is no room for judicial construction, and [this Court]
must give it its plain and definite meaning.” Correll, 332
N.C. at 144, 418 S.E.2d at 235. Further, all the evidence
in this matter clearly demonstrates that Claimant’s
involuntary sterilization was performed without adherence
to the requirements set forth in “Chapter 224 of the Public
Laws of 1933 or Chapter 221 of the Public Laws of 1937.”
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143B–426.50(5). Therefore, we must
affirm.
Id. at ___, 782 S.E.2d at 120. Our Supreme Court granted Claimant’s petition for
discretionary review by order entered 28 September 2017, stating: “To prevent
manifest injustice, the petition for discretionary review filed in [this case] is allowed
1 See House I for the factual and procedural background of this case.
-2-
IN RE HOUSE
Opinion of the Court
for the limited purpose of remanding the case to the Court of Appeals for expedited
consideration of [C]laimant’s constitutional claim on the merits.” Claimant sets forth
two arguments on appeal:
I. [Claimant’s] Sterilization Initiated By Government
Officials Had To Be Performed Under Public Law 1933,
Chapter 224 In Order To Be Performed Lawfully.
II. The Full Commission’s Strict Construction Of N.C. Gen.
Stat. § 143(b)-426.50(5) Constitutes Denial Of
Compensation Benefits To [Claimant] Due To An Overly
Strict and Technical Construction Of The Statute.
There is nothing in Claimant’s arguments, as set forth above, that indicates
Claimant was attempting to make any constitutional argument on appeal. Upon a
thorough additional review of Claimant’s arguments on appeal, we can locate no
cognizable constitutional argument. Although Claimant does state: “A person who is
sterilized by the state ‘is forever deprived of a basic liberty.’ Skinner v. Oklahoma,
316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942)[,]” this singular statement does not constitute an argument
that this Court can address.
Because Claimant in the present matter made no “constitutional claim” in her
appeal, there is nothing for this Court to consider pursuant to the mandate of our
Supreme Court’s 28 September 2017 order, and we reaffirm our opinion in House I.
We incorporate our opinion in House I, __ N.C. App. __, 782 S.E.2d 115, into this
opinion, adopt its analysis in its entirety, and re-affirm this Court’s holding in House
I based upon that analysis.
-3-
IN RE HOUSE
Opinion of the Court
AFFIRMED.
Judges DILLON and DAVIS concur.
-4-