Justia Health Law Opinion Summaries

Donnell Richard filed a complaint in the federal district court in Texas against Union Pacific alleging that, during the course and scope of his employment, he suffered physical injuries because of Union Pacific's negligence. Richard then filed a notice of nonsuit without prejudice, which the district court granted. Richard refiled his cause of action in the circuit court. Union Pacific moved to dismiss Richard's complaint. After finding that Richard's summons and service of summons was defective, the circuit court dismissed the case with prejudice, holding that in light of Richard's prior voluntary dismissal of his suit in Texas, the case should be dismissed with prejudice under Ark. R. Civ. P. 41 because the parties did not enter into a joint agreement regarding dismissal of the first complaint. The Supreme Court reversed the order of dismissal with prejudice, holding that the circuit court erred in its interpretation and application of the two-dismissal rule in Rule 41 to the facts of this case. Remanded. View "Richard v. Union Pac. R.R. Co." on Justia Law

Appellants, Little Rock Healthcare (LRHC), a nursing care facility; Donald Bedell, the sole member of the governing body for LRHC; and Heartland Personnel Leasing, appealed from a judgment in favor of Appellee Brenda Williams, as personal representative of the Estate of Minnie Valentine, who died after being discharged from LRHC. The Supreme Court reversed, dismissing Bedell and remanding for a new trial as to LRHC and Heartland, holding (1) the circuit court erred by denying Bedell's directed-verdict motion and judgment notwithstanding the verdict as Bedell owed no personal duty to Valentine; and (2) the circuit court erred in excluding Valentine's post discharge medical evidence, which error was prejudicial and warranted a new trial.

Appellants, Theresa and Eddie Paulino, filed an action against Appellees, QHG of Springdale and NorthWest Arkansas Hospitals (collectively, NMC), for negligent credentialing and negligent retention after three surgeries left Mrs. Paulino unable to walk. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of NMC, concluding that, inter alia, the Medical Malpractice Act did not confer a cause of action for negligent credentialing, nor did a cause of action for negligent credentialing exist in Arkansas. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in determining that (1) the Medical Malpractice Act did not confer a cause of action for negligent credentialing; (2) there did not exist nor was it necessary to create a tort for negligent credentialing; and (3) because the nurse that monitored the surgeries was the employee of an independent contractor, NMC could not be held liable for negligent hiring, supervision, or retention of the nurse.

Civitan Center, Inc. brought a declaratory judgment action against the Division of Developmental Disabilities Services of the Arkansas Department of Human Services (DDS). Civitan, a corporation licensed by DDS to operate an adult developmental center, requested a declaratory judgment stating that DDS could not lawfully license a new provider in the county Civitan was servicing pursuant to a proposed policy authorizing DDS to initiate the expansion of the number of service providers in a specific county until the policy was properly promulgated. The circuit court entered an order granting summary judgment in favor of Civitan, ruling that DDS failed to comply with its own procedures and state law, that DDS denied Civitan due process, and that Civitan was denied a hearing in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) because Civitan failed to present a justiciable controversy, declaratory judgment in Civitan's favor was not proper, and (2) therefore, the circuit court erred in granting Civitan's motion for summary judgment.

The Arkansas Health Services Permit Commission awarded Hospitality Care Center a permit of approval (POA) for a nursing facility. Gracewood Nursing and Rehabilitation Center subsequently requested approval from the Commission to transfer the POA to it from Hospitality. Twin Rivers Health and Rehab opposed the transfer. The Commission ultimately granted the transfer of the POA. Twin Rivers sought judicial review of the Commission's decision and declaratory relief, naming as defendants the Commission, the Arkansas Health Services Permit Agnecy (AHSPA), Gracewood, and Hospitality. The circuit court granted the summary judgment motion of the Commission and the AHSPA and affirmed the Commission's decision. The Supreme Court (1) reversed and remanded the matter with directions to enter findings of fact and conclusions of law because the Commission did not set forth any findings of fact or conclusions of law to support its decision to grant the transfer of the POA; and (2) dismissed without prejudice that portion of the appeal relating to Twin Rivers's request for summary judgment, as the Court does not hear appeals piecemeal.

Brett Nelson entered into contracts with the Arkansas Rural Medical Practice Student Loan and Scholarship Board and the rural community Forrest City pursuant to the state's community-match program that loaned Nelson money for his medical schooling and obliged him to practice medicine full time in Forrest City for four years upon the completion of his residency. Nelson began serving his four-year commitment in Forrest City, but when the hospital he was employed with did not renew his employment contract the next year, Nelson left Forest City to practice medicine in another state. The Board filed a complaint against Nelson for breach of contract and, alternatively, unjust enrichment. Nelson answered, asserting several affirmative defenses and making several counterclaims. The circuit court granted the Board's motion for summary judgment and entered judgment against Nelson in the amount of $133,152. The Supreme Court (1) reversed the grant of summary judgment to the Board on its breach of contract claim because questions of fact remained as to Nelson's counterclaims and defenses; and (2) otherwise affirmed. Remanded.

Appellant Jane Henry, as the personal representative of the estate of her deceased husband Ernest, sued multiple parties, including Continental Casualty Company (Continental), Washington Regional Medical Center (Washington), Irma De La Cruz R.N., and Amber Hefner R.N. Among other things, Mrs. Henry asserted that Washington was vicariously liable for the conduct of its employees, including nurses De La Cruz and Hefner. Mrs. Henry proceeded against the hospital's insurer, Continental, under the state's "direct-action" statute. All Defendants moved to dismiss, because Mrs. Henry failed to obtain service of process on the nurses before the statute of limitations expired. Because Washington's alleged negligence arose from its vicarious liability based on the actions of the nurses, Defendants argued that claims against Washington and Continental must also be dismissed. The circuit court granted Defendants' motion, and Mrs. Henry appealed. The Supreme Court held that "because direct-action statutes are remedial in nature, we liberally construe them for the benefit of the injured parties and to effectuate the intended purposes." On review of the applicable case law, the Court found that failing include the nurses in this case was not fatal. Appellant could still pursue the hospital and its insurance carrier for the alleged negligence of its employees. The Court reversed the lower courts' decisions and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Appellant Baptist Health (Baptist) appealed the circuit courtâs order that granted Appellee Andre Hutsonâs class-certification motion. In her underlying claim, Appellee argued that Baptist breached a contractual obligation by assessing medical services at higher rates than its âregularâ rates. Appellee concluded that a class action suit was the only feasible method to address the allegation for over a thousand patients like her. Baptist argued that the circuit court abused its discretion by stretching the rules in order to certify the class action suit. The trial court agreed with Appellee, and certified the case as a class action. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and affirmed the lower courtâs decision.