 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Dowell v. Conrad5/31/2000
s to a material fact. Johnson v. Arthur, 65 Ark. App. 220, 986 S.W.2d 874 (1999). In appeals from the granting of summary judgment, this court reviews facts in a light most favorable to the appellant and resolves any doubt against the moving party. Id. Summary judgment is not proper where evidence, although in no material dispute as to actuality, reveals aspects from which inconsistent hypotheses might reasonably be drawn and reasonable minds might differ. Id. On appellate review, we need only decide if the granting of summary judgment was appropriate based on whether the evidentiary items presented by the moving party in support of a motion left a material question of fact unanswered. Muddiman, supra.
Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-114-206 (Repl. 1997) states: (a) In any action for medical injury , the plaintiff shall have the burden of proving:
(1) The degree of skill and learning ordinarily possessed and used by members of the profession of the medical care provider in good standing, engaged in the same type of practice or specialty in the locality in which he practices or in a similar locality;
(2) That the medical care provider failed to act in accordance with that standard; and
(3) That as a proximate result thereof, the injured person suffered injuries which would not otherwise have occurred.
Dr. Rodney was designated as the only expert witness for appellants. In his deposition testimony, Dr. Rodney could not establish that Conard's and Dr. Moody's breach of the standard of care proximately caused Shawn's death. Even where there are genuine questions of fact on the issue of negligence, summary judgment is appropriate where there is uncontroverted proof that the alleged negligence could not have been a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury . Oglesby v. Baptist Med. Sys., 319 Ark. 280, 891 S.W.2d 48 (1995). As appellants have no expert proof as to the proximate cause of Shawn's death, we find that appellants failed to present sufficient evidence of a genuine issue of material fact.
Affirmed.
Koonce and Roaf, JJ., agree.
|