Richards v. KRMC , 2018 MT 10N ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                                01/16/2018
    DA 17-0302
    Case Number: DA 17-0302
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
    
    2018 MT 10N
    HARRY RICHARDS,
    Plaintiff and Appellant,
    v.
    KRMC; PROMPT CARE,
    Defendants and Appellees.
    APPEAL FROM:            District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District,
    In and For the County of Flathead, Cause No. DV 16-257C
    Honorable Robert B. Allison, Presiding Judge
    COUNSEL OF RECORD:
    For Appellant:
    Harry Richards, Self-Represented, Trego, Montana
    For Appellee:
    Sean Goicoechea, Chris Di Lorenzo, Moore, Cockrell, Goicoechea &
    Johnson, P.C., Kalispell, Montana
    Submitted on Briefs: December 20, 2017
    Decided: January 16, 2018
    Filed:
    __________________________________________
    Clerk
    Justice Laurie McKinnon delivered the Opinion of the Court.
    ¶1     Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court Internal Operating
    Rules, this case is decided by memorandum opinion and shall not be cited and does not
    serve as precedent. Its case title, cause number, and disposition shall be included in this
    Court’s quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana
    Reports.
    ¶2     Plaintiff and Appellant Harry Richards (Richards) filed his first Complaint against
    Kalispell Regional Medical Center and Eureka Prompt Care (collectively KRMC) in the
    Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County, on January 15, 2015. Richards’s first
    Complaint was dismissed because he failed to complete the Montana Medical Legal Panel
    (MMLP) process. On September 4, 2015, Richards filed a claim with the MMLP. The
    MMLP issued a ruling on February 17, 2016. Richards subsequently filed his Complaint
    in District Court alleging three medical malpractice claims: (1) KRMC failed to properly
    treat Richards’s medical complaints; (2) KRMC prescribed medications to Richards that
    purportedly caused Richards erectile dysfunction and bad dreams; and (3) KRMC
    inappropriately discharged Richards as a patient. Richards also alleged that KRMC failed
    to provide a written statement refuting various allegations made by Lincoln County Deputy
    Sheriff Steve Short.
    ¶3     In the underlying dispute, Richards asserts that, in 2012, Deputy Short alleged that
    Richards and Deputy Short’s wife, Raylee Short, an employee of Eureka Prompt Care, had
    sexual relations in an examination room.        Richards alleges that Linda Schatzel, a
    physician’s assistant at Eureka Prompt Care, would not provide him with a written
    2
    statement refuting Deputy Short’s allegations. Thereafter, the Director of Eureka Prompt
    Care sent Richards a letter discontinuing the patient-provider relationship. Richards’s
    Complaint filed in District Court raises claims related to KRMC’s failure to provide a
    written statement, as well as claims related to the medical care and treatment Richards
    received prior to his discharge by KRMC.
    ¶4     On September 8, 2016, the District Court issued its Amended Scheduling Order
    setting a November 18, 2016 deadline for disclosure of expert witnesses, as required by M.
    R. Civ. P. 26. On November 17, 2016, Richards mailed KRMC’s counsel a witness list
    that included two categories of witnesses: “Hostile” and “Non Hostile.” Richards’s
    witness list was not filed with the District Court. Richards did not disclose or identify any
    expert witnesses to offer an opinion that KRMC’s care and treatment of Richards departed
    from the accepted standard of care. The District Court granted KRMC’s motion for
    summary judgment and agreed with KRMC that Montana law requires expert testimony to
    establish the applicable standard of care and any departure from the standard of care. The
    District Court also concluded that KRMC did not have a legal duty to provide a written
    statement refuting Deputy Short’s allegations.
    ¶5     Richards has filed a two-page, nine-paragraph opening brief entitled, “OPENING
    BRIEF WITH RESERVATION TO ADD TO BECAUSE OF MY CONDITION I M[A]Y
    HAVE FORGOT SOMETHING.” Although Richards has failed to assign or adequately
    address any alleged errors in the District Court’s order granting summary judgment, we
    will construe Richards’s appeal generally as an objection to the Court’s grant of summary
    judgment to KRMC. We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo.
    3
    McClue v. Safeco Ins. Co., 
    2015 MT 222
    , ¶ 8, 
    380 Mont. 204
    , 
    354 P.3d 604
    . “Summary
    judgment is appropriate when the moving party demonstrates both the absence of any
    genuine issues of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.” Albert v.
    Billings, 
    2012 MT 159
    , ¶ 15, 
    365 Mont. 454
    , 
    282 P.3d 704
    . “A material fact is a fact that
    involves the elements of the cause of action or defenses at issue to an extent that
    necessitates resolution of the issue by a trier of fact.” Williams v. Plum Creek Timber Co.,
    
    2011 MT 271
    , ¶ 14, 
    362 Mont. 368
    , 
    264 P.3d 1090
    (quoting Arnold v. Yellowstone Mt.
    Club, LLC, 
    2004 MT 284
    , ¶ 15, 
    323 Mont. 295
    , 
    100 P.3d 137
    ) (internal quotations omitted).
    ¶6     It is well settled in Montana that a plaintiff in a medical malpractice action must
    establish the following elements: (1) the applicable standard of care; (2) that the defendant
    departed from that standard of care; and (3) that the departure proximately caused the
    plaintiff’s injuries. Mont. Deaconess Hosp. v. Gratton, 
    169 Mont. 185
    , 189-90, 
    545 P.2d 670
    , 672-73 (1976). Further, “[w]ithout expert testimony to establish these elements, no
    genuine issue of material fact exists and the defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter
    of law.” Estate of Willson v. Addison, 
    2011 MT 179
    , ¶ 17, 
    361 Mont. 269
    , 
    258 P.3d 410
    (footnote omitted). Richards’s three claims regarding his care at KRMC are claims for
    medical malpractice. The District Court found that Richards failed to disclose any expert
    witnesses to support his medical malpractice allegations.        Failure to provide expert
    testimony is fatal to Richards’s claims regarding his medical treatment. Accordingly, the
    District Court correctly granted summary judgment to KRMC on Richards’s claims of
    medical malpractice.
    4
    ¶7     The District Court also correctly concluded that KRMC had no legal duty to provide
    Richards with a written statement refuting Deputy Short’s accusations. Richards failed to
    set forth any legal authority that provides KRMC is responsible for Deputy Short’s actions.
    Further, Richards testified at his deposition that only Deputy Short made the allegedly false
    statement.1
    ¶8     We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c) of our
    Internal Operating Rules, which provides for memorandum opinions. In the opinion of the
    Court, the case presents a question controlled by settled law or by the clear application of
    applicable standards of review.
    ¶9     Affirmed.
    /S/ LAURIE McKINNON
    We Concur:
    /S/ DIRK M. SANDEFUR
    /S/ JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA
    /S/ BETH BAKER
    /S/ JIM RICE
    1
    The District Court, in its order granting summary judgment to KRMC, also considered claims
    raised by Richards during his deposition, which were not raised in his Complaint. These claims
    related to KRMC’s allegedly inappropriate dissemination of Richards’s health care information
    and use of MMLP records. The District Court concluded that the sharing of Richards’s medical
    information was between medical providers at the same medical facility and that § 50-16-529(1)
    and (3), MCA, allowed for the sharing of this information. Respecting allegedly inappropriate use
    of MMLP records, the District Court determined Richards’s claims were unsubstantiated and
    lacked any legal authority. Upon review of the record, we also conclude the District Court did not
    err in its determinations on these issues.
    5