 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Smith v. Hull8/27/1998
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Yellowstone, The Honorable Robert W. Holmstrom, Judge presiding.
Submitted on Briefs: July 29, 1998
Decided: August 25, 1998
Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court 1996 Internal Operating Rules, the following decision shall not be cited as precedent but shall be filed as a public document with the Clerk of the Supreme Court and shall be reported by case title, Supreme Court cause number and result to the State Reporter Publishing Company and to West Group in the quarterly table of noncitable cases issued by this Court.
Keith Warren Smith and Linda Adele Smith (Smiths), plaintiffs in the underlying action, appeal from, among other things, the District Court's summary judgment in favor of defendants Willard J. Hull, M.D., Robert J. Schultz, M.D., Michael W. Brennan, M.D., Timothy A. Sanders, P.A., the Billings Clinic, and Deaconess Medical Center (collectively referred to as the health-care providers). We affirm.
Background
Smiths, acting pro se, commenced their action on February 28, 1994, alleging that the health-care providers committed medical malpractice in connection with rotator-cuff surgery performed in October 1990 on Mr. Smith by Dr. Hull. Smiths designated as their standard of care expert Dr. Frederick A. Matsen, III. On July 28, 1997, Smiths took Dr. Matsen's video deposition for use at trial and a transcript of the doctor's testimony was filed with the Clerk of Court. Believing that Dr. Matsen had failed to provide adequate expert testimony on the applicable standard of care for rotator-cuff surgery and as to the breach of that standard, the health-care providers moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted this motion concluding that Smiths failed to produce the requisite expert testimony on these issues.
The record in this case contains nearly 600 pleadings. Smiths' notice of appeal sets forth at least 12 orders from which they wished to appeal. Notwithstanding, they address only those orders of the trial court dated January 24, 1997, denying their motion for summary judgment, the September 30, 1997 order granting the health-care providers' motion for summary judgment, the October 23, 1997 judgment of the court, and the court's November 28, 1997 order denying relief from judgment. To the extent necessary, further background and facts will be set forth in our Discussion of the issues.
Issues
Smiths' opening brief raises 43 issues. We conclude, however, that the issues dispositive of this appeal are more properly framed as follows:
1. Did the District Court err when it granted summary judgment to the health-care providers?
2. Did the District Court err when it twice denied summary judgment to Smiths?
3. Did the District Court abuse its discretion when it ruled on certain discovery matters?
4. Did the District Court abuse its discretion when it ordered that the 1995 deposition of Dr. Matsen could not be used as evidence in this case?
Discussion
I.
Did the District Court err when it granted summary judgment to the health-care providers?
Under Rule 56(c), M.R.Civ.P., summary judgment is proper only when the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, affidavits and admissions on file show no genuine issues of material fact exist and when the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. We review summary judgment rulings de novo. Vennes v. Miller, 1998 Mont. 23,
, ___ Mont. ___,
,
Page 1 2 3 4 Montana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|