 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Peters v. West Park Hospital9/17/2003
This is a medical negligence action brought by the appellant, Judy Peters (Peters), against the appellees, West Park Hospital a nd two employees of the hospital (the Hospital). Pursuant to W.R.C.P. 41(a)(1), Ms. Peters sought to voluntarily dismiss her case without prejudice. The district court, upon the Hospital's motion, instead dismissed the matter with prejudice on the grounds that the limitations period in the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act had not and could never be complied with.
We hold that under the circumstances presented here, the district court could not dismiss Ms. Peters' case with prejudice, and, therefore, we must reverse.
ISSUE
Does the filing of a voluntary dismissal without prejudice pursuant to W.R.C.P. 41(a)(1) preclude the district court from dismissing the case with prejudice?
FACTS
Ms. Peters' complaint alleges that on August 18, 2000, she was admitted to West Park Hospital in Cody for hip replacement surgery and follow-up care. Ms. Peters contends that on August 25, 2000, while in the radiology department of the Hospital, a radiology technician improperly manipulated and handled Ms. Peters, thereby causing a broken left leg.
The complaint was filed on August 21, 2002. The Hospital filed a Motion to Dismiss on September 19, 2002. The Hospital alleged in their motion that Ms. Peters had failed to comply with Wyo. Stat. Ann ยง 1-39-113 (LexisNexis 2003). That provision requires that prior to suit being filed against a governmental entity, a statutorily-proper written notice of claim must first be submitted to the governmental entity. Compliance with the claim process must also be pled in the complaint against the entity.
We have previously held that the district court has no subject-matter jurisdiction where the complaint against a governmental entity fails to allege that the claim process had been followed. Dee v. Laramie County, 666 P.2d 957, 958-59 (Wyo. 1983). In apparent acknowledgment that the Hospital was a governmental entity and that no notice of claim had been filed as required, Ms. Peters filed a Notice of Dismissal Without Prejudice pursuant to W.R.C.P. 41(a)(1) on October 21, 2002. The Hospital then filed a Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss Complaint And Objection to Notice of Dismissal Without Prejudice. It was the Hospital's position that the complaint should be dismissed with prejudice since the limitation period in the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act could never be complied with.
The district court agreed with the Hospital and dismissed Ms. Peters' complaint with prejudice on October 23, 2002. Ms. Peters then filed a Rule 59(e) Motion to Alter or Amend the Court's Order of Dismissal With Prejudice. The district court denied Ms. Peters' motion.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
This appeal centers on an interpretation of W.R.C.P. 41(a)(1) (Rule 41(a) (1)). Questions of law are reviewed by this Court de novo. Jessen v. Jessen, 2002 WY 33, 7, 41 P.3d 543, 545-46 (Wyo. 2002); In re DCP, 2001 WY 77, 7, 30 P.3d 29, 30 (Wyo. 2001).
DISCUSSION
At the heart of this appeal is the effect of filing a Rule 41(a)(1) motion. Rule 41(a)(1) provides, in pertinent part:
(a) Voluntary dismissal; effect thereof. -
(1) By Plaintiff... (i) by filing a notice of dismissal at any time before service by the adverse party of an answer or of a motion for summary judgment....
(Emphasis added.)
This is a matter of first impression before this Court. However, numerous other jurisdictions have considered the application of Rule 41(a)(1). We have previously ac
Page 1 2 3 Wyoming Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|