STATE OF WAKE
FOREST COUNTY
JEREMY JOHNSON, and
NANCY JOHNSON,
)
Plaintiffs, )
) v.
RUDI JOHNSON
)
)
Defendant. )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
Plaintiffs, Jeremy and Nancy Johnson, allege the following:
05 CVS 379
COMPLAINT
Introduction
1. Plaintiffs are parents seeking a declaratory judgment that under Wake law, parental guardians have the right to compel their minor child’s participation in a medical procedure to donate a portion of that child’s liver to an older sibling.
Parties
2. Plaintiffs Jeremy Johnson and Nancy Johnson are married residents of Deacon City, Wake.
Plaintiffs are the legal guardians of two minor children, Chad Johnson and Defendant Rudi Johnson.
3. Defendant is Rudi Johnson, the youngest son of Jeremy and Nancy Johnson. Rudi is a ten year old child and the most prospective liver donor for Rudi’s biological brother, Chad.
Jurisdiction and Venue
4. This court has jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgments Act, W.G.S. § 178.02. Venue is proper as all parties are residents of Deacon City.
Facts
5. Jeremy and Nancy Johnson are the natural parents and legal guardians of both Rudi Johnson, ten, and Chad Johnson, fourteen.
6. Chad Johnson suffers from Alpha-1 Antitrypsin Deficiency, an incurable disease affecting the liver. Chad is in critical need of a liver donation and there is a high probability that Chad will die within one year if he does not receive a liver transplant.
7. Chad is currently low on the cadaveric liver donation list. The most practical medical alternative to cadaveric donation is a living donor liver transplantation (“LDLT”). This process
1

involves sectioning portions of the donor’s liver for transplantation into the recipient without any permanent damage to the donor.
8. All immediate members of the Johnson family have been tested as possible liver donors. The best potential donor for Chad is his younger brother, Rudi. Chad’s parents are not preferable donors because of their social drinking and history of smoking.
9. Both Jeremy and Nancy Johnson wish for their younger son Rudi to donate a portion of his liver to Chad. Rudi refuses to participate in the donation because he is scared and does not understand the severity of Chad’s situation.
10. As a result of Rudi’s refusal, Sacred Heart Hospital and the performing surgeon, Dr. Chris
Henry, will not perform the operation unless a declaratory judgment is obtained stating that the
Johnsons can compel their younger son’s participation.
Prayer for Relief
11. Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1-10 as if set out herein.
12. Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that their status as legal guardians over Defendant authorizes them to consent to a medical procedure removing a portion of Defendant’s liver for transplantation into his brother Chad.
WHEREFORE,
Plaintiffs respectfully request:
13. That this Court enter a declaratory judgment stating that Jeremy and Nancy Johnson as natural parents with legal guardianship over Rudi Johnson have the authority to compel Rudi to donate a portion of his liver to his brother Chad.
14. That Plaintiffs be allowed any attorney’s fees and costs as allowed by law; and
15. That Plaintiffs be granted such other and further relief as to the Court seems just and proper.
This the 9 th
day of August, 2012.
/s/
Carson Palmer
Attorney for Plaintiffs
156 E. Forest Ave.
Deacon City, Wake 27901
(556) 231-5862
2

STATE OF WAKE
FOREST COUNTY
JEREMY JOHNSON, and
NANCY JOHNSON,
)
Plaintiffs, )
) v.
RUDI JOHNSON
)
)
Defendant. )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
05 CVS 379
ANSWER
NOW COMES the Defendant, who by and through his attorney, Tory James, answers the Plaintiff’s
Complaint as follows:
Introduction
1.) Defendant admits paragraph 1.
Parties
2.) Defendant admits paragraph 2.
3.) Defendant admits to parentage of Jeremy and Nancy Johnson over Rudi and Chad Johnson.
Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the remainder of paragraph 3.
Jurisdiction and Venue
4.) Defendant admits paragraph 4.
Facts
5.) Defendant admits paragraph 5.
6.) Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge to admit or deny paragraph 6.
7.) Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge to admit or deny paragraph 7.
8.) Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge to admit or deny paragraph 8.
9.) Defendant admits Mr. and Mrs. Johnson sought to compel their son Rudi to donate a portion of his liver. Defendant admits that Rudi refuses to participate in the transplant. Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge regarding Rudi’s ability to understand the gravity of the situation.
10.) Defendant admits paragraph 10.
3

Cause of Action
11.) Defendant admits or denies the allegations of paragraphs 1-10 based on its statements made above.
11.) All allegations of the complaint not herein expressly admitted shall be taken as denied.
12.) Plaintiffs are barred from receiving declaratory judgment because Wake common law prohibits guardians from compelling donative transfers of a minor’s property rights.
This, the 17 th
day of August, 2012.
/s/
Tory James
Attorney for Defendant
520 Wait Dr.
Deacon City, Wake 27906
(556) 927-5017
4

STATE OF WAKE
FOREST COUNTY
JEREMY JOHNSON, and
NANCY JOHNSON,
)
)
)
)
)
IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
05 CVS 379
)
Plaintiffs, )
) v.
RUDI JOHNSON
)
)
Defendant. )
)
)
)
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Defendant moves, pursuant to Rule 56 of the Wake Rules of Civil Procedure, for the Court to find that no genuine issue as to any material fact is shown by the pleadings and that Defendant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Wake common law prohibits Jeremy and Nancy Johnson from compelling their youngest son Rudi from unwillingly donating a portion of his liver and the facts clearly demonstrate that Rudi does not want to participate. For this reason, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court grant Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
This the 25 th
day of August, 2012.
/s/
Tory James
520 Wait Dr.
Attorney for Defendant
Deacon City, Wake 27906
(556) 927-5017
5

STATE OF WAKE
FOREST COUNTY
JEREMY JOHNSON, and
NANCY JOHNSON,
)
)
)
)
)
IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
05 CVS 379
)
Plaintiffs, )
) v.
RUDI JOHNSON
)
)
Defendant. )
)
)
)
PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM IN
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
Plaintiffs respectfully request that this court deny the Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment because there are important policy considerations recognized by other jurisdictions that support a parent’s right to make medical decisions on behalf of children who are too young to fully appreciate or understand the total circumstances under which such a need arises. The Plaintiffs therefore request that the court deny the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
This the 3 rd
day of September, 2012.
/s/
Carson Palmer
Attorney for Plaintiffs
156 E. Forest Ave.
Deacon City, Wake 27901
(556) 231-5862
6

STATE OF WAKE
FOREST COUNTY
JEREMY JOHNSON, and
NANCY JOHNSON,
)
)
)
)
)
IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
05 CVS 379
)
Plaintiffs, )
) v.
RUDI JOHNSON
)
)
Defendant. )
)
)
)
DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT OF DAVID
POLLACK CONDUCTED BY CARSON
PALMER
Carson Palmer, attorney for Jeremy and Nancy Johnson
PALMER: Dr. Pollack, can you state for the record your full name and profession?
POLLACK: Yes, My name is David Pollack and I am a psychologist.
PALMER: Thank you. Are you familiar with Rudi Johnson?
POLLACK: Yes, I met with Rudi for one hour per week this past August after his parents first approached him about doing the liver transplant.
PALMER: Do you feel that your discussions with Rudi were candid enough to draw any conclusions about whether Rudi understands what the consequences of his refusal to participate might be?
POLLACK: Well, yes. Based on our discussions I felt that Rudi understands his brother is sick and that he is being asked for help, but I don’t think he fully appreciates the importance of what he has the chance to do for his brother.
PALMER: How so?
POLLACK: Rudi knows that he is being asked to participate in the surgery, and knows that it would help his brother. He does not seem to understand that his donation is the best option to ensure a healthy transplant. He only understands that there are alternatives such as other living donors and waiting on the cadaveric donor list. He does not understand that these alternatives are riskier or that they may not materialize, just that they are possibilities.
PALMER: So he thinks his brother will be fine regardless of who performs the donation?
POLLACK: Yes. Rudi’s parents have been very honest with him from the beginning. They told him that if someone else were to donate their liver that the procedure would still probably be successful. Having heard that, he just doesn't appreciate the further reduction in risk that his
7

participation would offer. This, coupled with his fear of the surgery itself and a reluctance to miss football and other activities has led to his refusal.
PALMER: And do you think Rudi will regret this decision once he is older?
POLLACK: Rudi is a caring boy. If he continues his refusal I feel he will regret that decision. He is too young to fully appreciate the value of what is being asked of him. I believe that Rudi, like most organ donors, would gain a sense of pride and happiness from helping out his sibling.
Additionally, he may well regret passing up a chance to help a sibling in need, particularly if an alternate donor is used and Chad develops complications. It is my opinion that if Rudi does not participate, and the surgery does not go well that Rudi will face significant trauma and feelings of guilt, regret, and culpability.
PALMER: Thank you.
8

STATE OF WAKE
FOREST COUNTY
JEREMY JOHNSON, and
NANCY JOHNSON,
)
Plaintiffs, )
) v.
RUDI JOHNSON
)
)
Defendant. )
)
)
)
Tory James, attorney for the Defendant
)
)
)
)
)
IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
05 CVS 379
DEPOSITION OF CHRIS PERRY
CONDUCTED BY TORY JAMES
JAMES: Dr. Perry, could you please state your name and occupation?
PERRY: I am Chris Perry and I am a psychiatrist.
JAMES: Thank you, Mr. Perry. Are you familiar with Rudi Johnson?
PERRY: Yes, I met with Rudi last month.
JAMES: Okay, and when you met with him, did Rudi discuss his feelings about donating part of his liver to his older brother Chad?
PERRY: Yes, he did. Rudi expressed that he does not wish to participate in the surgery. He is scared of the pain, the risk, and does not want to miss out on baseball this spring or football in the fall.
JAMES: Do you feel that Rudi has a full and mature view of what is being asked of him?
PERRY: Although Rudi is only ten years old, he seems to have a rather complete idea of what is going on. He understands that his brother needs help and seems to know that he is in the best position to do so. He also understands that alternatives are available and based on this knowledge has decided that he does not want to do the donation. At Rudi’s age level, most of his decisions are still driven by selfish motives, and that is consistent with how he is acting.
JAMES: Okay. As Rudi matures, do you think he will regret making such a self-serving decision?
PERRY: It is my opinion that if he feels any regret later about not participating that it would be minimal. He will know that as a ten year old, a lot was asked of him. In my professional opinion, the trauma and parental resentment that will almost certainly result from compelling an unwilling child to participate in major surgery for the benefit of another far outweighs any potential regret that may or may not develop later in life.
9

JAMES: So, in your professional opinion, which poses a greater risk to Rudi psychologically, forcing him to participate, or letting him decide?
PERRY: It is my opinion that forcing Rudi to participate will very likely result in immediate and lasting resentment of his parents and his brother. This outweighs the risk that he may develop feelings of regret later in life if his decision not to donate is accepted. I therefore believe that it is not in Rudi’s best interest, at least psychologically, to compel his participation.
JAMES: Thank you very much for your time Dr. Perry.
PERRY: You’re welcome.
10

STATE OF WAKE
FOREST COUNTY
JEREMY JOHNSON, and
NANCY JOHNSON,
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs, )
) v.
RUDI JOHNSON
)
)
Defendant. )
)
)
)
Carson Palmer, attorney for the Plaintiffs
IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
05 CVS 379
DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT OF CHRIS
HENRY CONDUCTED BY CARSON
PALMER
PALMER: Dr. Henry, could you please state your full name and occupation?
HENRY: Yes, my name is Chris Henry, and I am a surgeon at Sacred Heart Hospital here in
Deacon City.
PALMER: Could you explain for us the medical procedure that the Johnsons are seeking for their eldest son Chad?
HENRY: Sure. The process is called a living donor liver transplant, or LDLT. An LDLT involves sectioning either the left or right lobe of the living donor’s liver and transplanting it into the donee.
Since each lobe of the liver can function independently, the procedure poses only a slight risk for the donor. Here, because Rudi is smaller in stature than his brother, the right lobe, which constitutes 60% of the total liver’s volume, would be used. This would not place Rudi at a greater risk of long term problems, but would lengthen his recovery period.
PALMER: During this recovery period, would Rudi still be able to attend school?
HENRY: Yes, after about a week he would be able to attend school and engage in light physical activity. However, since such a large portion of Rudi’s liver would be sectioned, I would recommend at least six months before he participated in any heavier activities such as running or swimming.
PALMER: What are the odds that Rudi would suffer any permanent damage from participating in the donation?
HENRY: Very low. There are the normal risks of general anesthesia and very slight risks of blood clotting or excessive bleeding, either of which could cause permanent damage. But as I said, these risks are low, I would estimate around a 1-2% chance of serious complications, including the approximate 1 in 10,000 risk of death from anesthesia.
11

PALMER: And Rudi has been selected as the most ideal donor, is that correct?
HENRY: Yes, because Rudi’s liver is completely healthy, the recovery process for Chad will be quicker than if his parents were to donate. With Rudi as the donor, the risk of rejection would be reduced to about 5% as opposed to roughly 15% for a parental donor. A healthy unrelated donor would also work, but those are very hard to come by and one likely may not come along in Chad’s case.
PALMER: Thank you for your time doctor, I believe those are all the questions I have for you today.
HENRY: Thank you.
12

STATE OF WAKE
FOREST COUNTY
JEREMY JOHNSON, and
NANCY JOHNSON,
)
Plaintiffs, )
) v.
RUDI JOHNSON
)
)
Defendant. )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
05 CVS 379
DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT OF RUDI
JOHNSON CONDUCTED BY CARSON
PALMER
Carson Palmer, attorney for the Plaintiffs
PALMER: Hi Rudi, how are you today?
R. JOHNSON: I’m fine.
PALMER: Okay Rudi, I’m going to ask you to say your full name and then answer some questions for me. Can you do that?
R. JOHNSON: Yes, my name is Rudi Johnson.
PALMER: Thanks Rudi. First, I’d like you to explain your feelings about donating part of your liver to your brother.
R. JOHNSON: I love my brother, and I know everyone wants me to do it, but I’m scared. I’m afraid of doctors. I hate going to get my shots, and I know this would hurt me much more. Plus, they have other people that could do it, like my mom or dad, and it would still work, they told me that.
PALMER: Well, while the procedure is likely to work with anyone who has a healthy liver, the doctors say that yours is healthier than your parents. Since the three of you are the only donors available, yours is the best option, do you understand that?
R. JOHNSON: I know what they’re saying, but the difference is small, and I don't want to do it because I couldn’t play football if I did it. Also, I couldn’t play with my friends this summer.
PALMER: You just started playing football last year, is that correct?
R. JOHNSON: Yeah, but I’m good, and it's a lot of fun. If I don’t get to play this year then I’ll fall behind and not get to start next year on the sixth grade team. Plus, like I said, my friends and I go to the pool all summer and I won’t get to do that either. It would ruin my whole summer and it would hurt a lot, and I just don’t want to do it.
13

PALMER: Do you want to help your brother?
R. JOHNSON: Yes, I love my brother very much, but I can’t do it. I am scared and it will hurt. I know my parents could do it and it would be okay. If I felt I was the only person who could give him a liver then I would do it, but its still going to work if my parents do it and they aren’t scared and they don't have sports, so one of them should do it.
PALMER: So if you were the only one available to help him, then you would do the donation?
R. JOHNSON: Yeah, I guess.
PALMER: And Rudi, has anyone close to you ever died before?
R. JOHNSON: No, I mean, my grandpa died when I was five, but I don't really remember him.
PALMER: Okay Rudi, that’s all. Thank you.
14

STATE OF WAKE
FOREST COUNTY
JEREMY JOHNSON, and
NANCY JOHNSON,
)
Plaintiffs, )
) v.
RUDI JOHNSON
)
)
Defendant. )
)
)
)
Tory James, attorney for the Defendant
)
)
)
)
)
IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
05 CVS 379
DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT OF CHAD
JOHNSON CONDUCTED BY TORY
JAMES
JAMES: Hi Chad, how are you feeling today?
C. JOHNSON: I feel alright today.
JAMES: Good. Could I get you to state your full name and relation to Rudi please?
C. JOHNSON: My name is Chad Johnson and I’m Rudi’s brother.
JAMES: Okay Chad, can I ask you whether you think your brother should do the donation?
C. JOHNSON: Yeah. I want him to do it, but I don't want to force him to do it. I know he has a healthier liver than both of my parents, and if my liver is going to grow back from the one they give me, I obviously want the best one I can get.
JAMES: But you don't think your parents should be able to force him?
C. JOHNSON: Nope. He’s already started getting sort of hostile to me about the whole thing. In my opinion he probably would have volunteered to do it if we left all this court stuff out of it, but now he feels backed into a corner and is never going to agree to it. Besides, he’s ten years old. He doesn’t need to spend this summer and the fall sitting on the couch and going on light walks instead of being out playing with his friends.
JAMES: So although you know Rudi is the best potential donor, you don't want to force him to donate, is that correct?
C. JOHNSON: Yeah, I don’t want to force him. I know he’s the best donor for me, and I really want him to do it, but this isn’t the way. If I get a liver from my parents and it doesn’t take, it’ll still give me time to wait for a healthy one. I can do that. I don't want to do that, but if it’s my only option, then I can.
15

JAMES: So you would prefer to accept one of your parents’ donations over forcing your brother to do it?
C. JOHNSON: Prefer their liver? No. But I would prefer it over forcing Rudi to donate his.
JAMES: Thank you.
C. JOHNSON: You’re welcome.
16

STATE OF WAKE
FOREST COUNTY
JEREMY JOHNSON, and
NANCY JOHNSON,
)
Plaintiffs, )
) v.
RUDI JOHNSON
)
)
Defendant. )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
05 CVS 379
DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT OF JEREMY
JOHNSON CONDUCTED BY CARSON
PALMER
Carson Palmer, attorney for the Plaintiffs
PALMER: Hello Mr. Johnson, please state for us your full name and relation to Rudi Johnson.
J. JOHNSON: I am Jeremy Johnson, Rudi Johnson’s father.
PALMER: Thank you. Mr. Johnson, why is it that you are seeking a court order to compel your son to donate part of his liver?
J. JOHNSON: Well, I understand some people might think it seems like a cold thing to do, but my wife and I don’t think so. We are a close family, and Rudi is a caring boy. We know our children, and we know that Rudi ultimately will regret his decision if he continues to refuse.
PALMER: Why do you say that?
J. JOHNSON: As I was saying, we are a close family and we look out for each other. At this point,
Rudi is very scared and doesn’t appreciate the value of what he can do. Chad has always been there for Rudi. Rudi structures his whole life after his brother. All this talk about not wanting to miss football, that’s because his brother used to play before his health worsened. Rudi idolizes his brother.
PALMER: If Rudi loves his brother so much, why would he still refuse?
J. JOHNSON: There’s the fear, which is huge, but mainly because he just doesn’t get it. If he understood the concept that his donation is three times less likely to be rejected than Nancy’s or mine, he’d jump on the opportunity in a moment. Instead he just sees that either his donation or ours will probably work. Trust me, if something goes wrong with Chad, Rudi will probably blame himself. Conversely, if we get our court order, I think that in retrospect Rudi will really appreciate doing this bold thing for his brother.
PALMER: Okay, but how do you feel about Chad’s statements that he would rather not force Rudi to do this?
17

J. JOHNSON: That’s just Chad being Chad. Chad loves his brother as much as Rudi loves him.
Chad is being the big brother, not wanting to force Rudi into the stress of surgery even though Chad knows he needs it. Trust me, Chad is in extreme pain. Often times it’s so bad that he can’t walk or even sleep. When he is feeling better he gets very emotional, sometimes crying or lashing out. The whole ordeal is very stressful for him. He knows Rudi is the best possible donor and wants Rudi to do it badly. He is just refusing to force Rudi because, well, that’s just Chad. He’s caring and lives for others, but is also stubborn and bold. Even if it meant certain death he probably wouldn’t force his brother into it, but again, that’s because he loves his brother.
PALMER: Alright, thank you. Finally, could you please just summarize why you think you are entitled to make this decision on Rudi’s behalf?
J. JOHNSON: Yes. Rudi is ten, and we are his parents. He is too young to make such an important decision. As his parents, we are in the best place to make that choice for him. We know
Rudi’s personality better than any court or therapist ever could, and we say he will be better off for it. If he does the donation, he will appreciate having done so for years to come. Rudi will get the satisfaction and happiness that comes along with helping out Chad in such a dramatic way, not to mention ensuring Chad’s health. This generosity and sense of family are part of the morality that
Nancy and I want for our kids. We are only asking the court to respect our right as parents to decide what is best for our children, and in this case, Rudi doing the donation is best for both of our children.
PALMER: I think that’s all we have for you Mr. Johnson, thank you.
J. JOHNSON: Thank you.
18

December 15, 2012
Guardian Ad Litem Report
For the Wake Superior Court of Forest County
In the Matter of Rudi Johnson
Pursuant to the Wake Superior Court’s judicial appointment of a Guardian Ad Litem in the matter of Rudi Johnson, juvenile.
Respectfully Submitted by
Christina Smith, Guardian Ad Litem for Rudi Johnson
Introduction
Rudi is the youngest son of Jeremy and Nancy Johnson. Rudi has been asked to donate a portion of his liver to his ailing brother, Chad. Rudi does not wish to participate and his parents have sought a court order compelling him to do so. Since Rudi is a minor, Judge Thurman of the
Superior Court ordered the appointment of a Guardian Ad Litem to make a recommendation in the matter.
This recommendation is based upon review of Rudi’s psychological reports, the deposition of the performing surgeon as well as two meetings with the Johnsons, both independently with
Rudi, and with his parents.
Recommendation
Rudi should not be compelled to participate in this surgery. Rudi is happy with his home life and the Johnsons appear to be a loving and supportive family, but the family’s judgment is clouded by their desire to see Chad healthy. The Johnsons are making a utilitarian decision that the small risk posed to Rudi is outweighed by the large benefit the surgery would confer on Chad.
Unfortunately, Jeremy and Nancy Johnson are not placing enough weight on Rudi’s opinion.
Rudi understands what is being asked of him and still does not wish to participate. He is afraid of the surgery and has listed several other reasons for not wishing to participate. Rudi mentioned to me that he was able to begin playing football last year, that he loves the sport, and would be unable to play this year if he undergoes the surgery. Rudi feels that his inability to play football this year would not only be depressing for him, but also hurt his chances of starting for the middle school team next year. Additionally, Rudi explained that he and his friends spend almost every day of the summer going to the swimming pool and he would be unable to do this if he participates in the surgery.
Finally, the most important reason why Rudi should not be compelled to participate in this surgery is simply the nature of what is being asked of him. This surgery poses a risk of serious health complications for Rudi, confers no medical benefit to Rudi himself, and he does not wish to participate. Based on my research, I feel that the operation is not in Rudi’s best interest and it is therefore my recommendation that this Court not require Rudi to participate.
/s/
Christina Smith
19

STATE OF WAKE
FOREST COUNTY
JEREMY JOHNSON, and
NANCY JOHNSON,
)
)
)
)
)
IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
05 CVS 379
)
Plaintiffs, )
) v.
RUDI JOHNSON
)
)
Defendant. )
)
)
)
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
The Plaintiffs, Jeremy and Nancy Johnson, brought this claim against the Defendant, their son Rudi Johnson, seeking a declaratory judgment compelling Rudi to donate a portion of his liver to his ailing sibling Chad. Defendant sought summary judgment on the basis that Wake common law forbids parents from compelling their child to donate the child’s property rights. Defendant contends that this protection extends to organ donation. This is an issue of first impression in
Wake, and Plaintiffs opposed Defendant’s motion by citing to other states that have permitted parents to compel their children’s consent to such procedures.
There are no genuine issues of material fact and Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Wake common law has long settled principles that parents have no right to compel their children to donate property rights. Although compelled organ donation is an issue of first impression in our state, the common law and policy considerations for protecting children from an unwanted intrusion solely for the benefit of another, clearly outweigh the right of parents to determine what is best for their children. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.
Entered this the 17 th
day of January, 2013.
/s/
Superior Judge
Hon. Odell Thurman
General Court of Justice
For Forest County
20

STATE OF WAKE
FOREST COUNTY
JEREMY JOHNSON, and
NANCY JOHNSON,
)
)
)
)
)
IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
05 CVS 379
)
Plaintiffs, )
) v.
RUDI JOHNSON
)
)
)
Defendant. )
)
NOTICE OF EXPEDITED APPEAL
Notice is hereby given that Plaintiff in the above-named action hereby moves for an expedited appeal to the Court of Appeals for the State of Wake from the judgment of the Wake
State Superior Court of Forest County on January 17, 2013. An expedited appeal is appropriate under these circumstances because a sharp decline in the donee sibling’s health has increased the need for immediate donor identification and liver transplantation in order to ensure the donee’s vitality and safety.
This the 24 th
day of January, 2013.
/s/
Carson Palmer
Attorney for Plaintiffs
156 E. Forest Ave.
Deacon City, Wake 27901
(556) 231-5862
21

STATE OF WAKE
FOREST COUNTY
JEREMY JOHNSON, and
NANCY JOHNSON,
)
Plaintiffs, )
) v.
RUDI JOHNSON
)
)
Defendant. )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
05 CVS 379
ORDER GRANTING EXPEDITED
APPEAL
Application having been made for leave to appeal the judgment of the Wake State Superior
Court of Forest County entered on January 17, 2013 and upon consideration thereof, it is hereby:
ORDERED that the motion be and is hereby granted and appeal is set for final argument
February 7, 2013. Briefs should address the following issue, in addition to advancing any other theories the parties deem relevant:
1. Should this court apply the “substituted judgment” or the “best interest” standard to the facts of this case?
This 25 th day of January, 2013.
/s/
Hon. Marvin Lewis
Chief Judge
Court of Appeals
State of Wake
22

State of Wake General Statutes Excerpt from § 10.250
Legal Consent
2(a) Only competent persons can consent to medical procedures or dispositions of their property; incompetent persons cannot be deemed to have given consent to any medical procedure or disposition of their property.
(1) Persons over the age of eighteen are presumed competent; likewise, persons under the age of eighteen are presumed incompetent.
(2) The presumption of competence described in part (2)(a)(1) can be overcome by a showing of mental or physical inability to give or withhold consent.
23