For the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion, the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed.
REVERSED.
Justice ORR did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
Eddings v. Southern Orthopedic & Musculoskeletal Associates, Inc., 356 N.C. 285 (2002)
Oct. 4, 2002
·
Supreme Court of North Carolina
·
No. 10A02
356 N.C. 285
TALLY EDDINGS, M.D. v. SOUTHERN ORTHOPEDIC AND MUSCULOSKELETAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
No. 10A02
(Filed 4 October 2002)
Arbitration and Mediation— arbitration — employment contract — Federal Arbitration Act — interstate commerce— remand for determination
A decision of the Court of Appeals that on orthopedic surgeon’s employment contract containing an arbitration clause evidenced a transaction involving commerce so that it was governed by the Federal Arbitration Act, and that a claim of fraudulent inducement of the entire contract is thus an issue to be determined by the arbitrator, is reversed for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion that it is impossible for the appellate court to determine whether the employment contract involved interstate commerce and is within the scope of the Federal Arbitration Act, that the case should be remanded to the trial court for a determination of this issue, and that if the trial court determines that the case does not involve interstate commerce and that state law governs enforcement of the agreement, any allegations of fraud are to be determined by the trial court rather than by arbitration.
*286Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 147 N.C. App. 375, 555 S.E.2d 649 (2001), reversing and remanding an order entered 30 June 2000 by Downs, J., in Superior Court, Buncombe County. Heard in the Supreme Court 10 September 2002.
Kelly & Rowe, P.A., by E. Glenn Kelly, for plaintiff-appellant.
McGuire, Wood & Bissette, P.A., by T. Douglas Wilson, Jr., for defendant-appellee.