Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court of the State of Montana affirmed a lower court decision that granted Dr. Gregory S. Tierney's motion to dismiss a medical malpractice lawsuit filed by Janice M. Dodds for insufficient service of process. Dodds initially filed the suit against Dr. Tierney and Benefis Health System in 2013, alleging medical malpractice related to a knee replacement surgery. She failed to serve the defendants in time. Dr. Tierney later filed for bankruptcy, which invoked an automatic stay, halting the lawsuit. After his bankruptcy discharge, Dodds attempted to serve Dr. Tierney but failed to do so within the required 30-day timeframe following the discharge.Dodds further sought to join Dr. Tierney's malpractice insurance company as the real party in interest, but the court denied the motion. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that Dodds had not proven Dr. Tierney's liability, thus the insurer had no duty to indemnify him. The court also rejected Dodds' argument that Dr. Tierney lacked standing after his Chapter 7 discharge. The court held that Dr. Tierney maintained a personal stake in demonstrating he was not liable for medical malpractice and that his insurer would only have a duty to indemnify him once Dodds proved her malpractice claims. View "Dodds v. Tierney" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court following a jury verdict in favor of Glacier Eye Center, P.C. (GEC) and Kalispell Regional Medical Center, Inc. (KRMC) in this medical malpractice action, holding that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to give certain jury instructions, requiring that this matter be remanded for a new trial.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court abused its discretion by refusing to give the jury a proportionate duty instruction and a loss of chance instruction under the facts of this case, and the court's failure to give these instructions resulted in the jury not being fully and fairly instructed in the applicable law, prejudicing Defendant and requiring a new trial; and (2) the district court erred by failing to poll the jury in the manner required by statute. View "Camen v. Glacier Eye Clinic, P.C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the district court granting summary judgment to Defendants on Plaintiffs' asserted medical malpractice claim against Dr. Julie Kuykendall and Great Falls Obstetrical and Gynecological Associations (collectively, Defendants), holding that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on Plaintiffs' medical malpractice claim due to a failure to present sufficient supporting expert medical testimony.Stephanie Kipfinger gave birth to a son, E.C., who was ultimately diagnosed with hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy, cerebral palsy, developmental delay, and microcephaly. Kipfinger and Ben Cunningham (together, Plaintiffs) brought this action against Defendants, asserting a medical malpractice claim regarding Dr. Kuykendall's care of Stephanie and E.C. The district court concluded that Defendants were entitled to summary judgment. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment on the causation element of Plaintiffs' medical malpractice claim against Defendants. View "Kipfinger v. Great Falls Obstetrical & Gynecological Associates" on Justia Law

In this medical malpractice action arising from a circumcision, the Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court precluding Plaintiff from presenting evidence as to either using incorrect scissors or incorrect use of scissors during the subject surgical procedure, holding that the court did not err.Plaintiff, for the benefit of her son, brought this action against Defendant, alleging that Defendant was negligent in performing her son's circumcision. The district court entered judgment in favor of Defendant. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's evidentiary rulings and the subsequent defense verdict, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding portions of Plaintiff's expert's testimony not disclosed in accordance with Mont. R. Civ. P. 26 and the scheduling order. View "Higgins v. Augustine" on Justia Law

In this medical malpractice action, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's order denying Plaintiff's renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law and motion for new trial, holding that the district court correctly denied Plaintiff's motion for judgment as a matter of law and her motion for a new trial.Plaintiff sued Dr. Robert Replogle and Spineology, alleging that Dr. Replogle did not obtain her informed consent for surgery because he did not disclose his financial interest in Spineology to her. The jury returned a verdict for Dr. Replogle, finding that the was not negligent in either obtaining Plaintiff's informed consent or the way he performed surgery. Thereafter, the district court denied Plaintiff's motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) a reasonable mind could accept the testimony presented at trial that Dr. Replogle was not required to disclose his financial interest in Spineology to obtain Plaintiff's informed consent prior to surgery; and (2) substantial evidence supported the jury's verdict, and neither reversal of that verdict nor a new trial was warranted. View "Howard v. Replogle" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the summary judgment dismissal of Plaintiff’s medical malpractice claim against Defendant, holding that the district court did not err by ruling that Plaintiff’s expert was not qualified under Mont. Code Ann. 26-2-601(1)(a).Plaintiff brought this action claiming that Defendant breached the standard of care when performing a spinal surgery on Plaintiff. Defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that Plaintiff’s expert was not qualified to opine on this malpractice claim. The district court agreed and granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err by excluding the testimony of Plaintiff’s medical expert under section 26-2-601(1)(a) and granting summary judgment on that basis. View "Melton v. Speth" on Justia Law

In this medical malpractice action, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment that Dr. David Huebner was not negligent in his treatment of David Bushong.Bushong was diagnosed with a rare and aggressive form of cancer and died of the cancer in 2009. Plaintiffs filed this action against Dr. Huebner and the Great Falls Clinic, alleging that Dr. Huebner was negligent in failing to diagnose or to take steps to diagnose Bushong’s cancer in 2006. The jury determined that Dr. Huebner was not negligent in his treatment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) any error on the part of the district court in failing to instruct the jury on loss of chance was harmless; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion by prohibiting Plaintiffs from asking Bushong’s treating physician whether Dr. Huebner breached the applicable standard of care and by limiting Plaintiffs’ impeachment of the treating physician on redirect; and (3) the district court did not manifestly abuse its discretion in determining that defense counsel’s isolated contemptuous comments over the course of the trial did not affect Plaintiffs’ substantial rights to a fair trial. View "Steffensmier v. Huebner" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court concluding, as a matter of law, that Plaintiff’s claims against Dr. Rodney Brandt were barred by the applicable statute of limitations.Dr. Brandt performed surgery on Plaintiff’s knee in 2008. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff began to experience new knee pain. In 2012, Plaintiff filed this claim asserting that Dr. Brandt negligently performed surgery on her knee. The district court ruled that Plaintiff’s claim was filed after the three-year statute of limitations had run. The Supreme Court disagreed and remanded the case, holding (1) the date on which Plaintiff discovered or reasonably should have discovered her injury involved disputed issues of material fact; and (2) Plaintiff was entitled to have a jury decide when she discovered or through reasonable diligence should have discovered her injury and that it may have been caused by Dr. Brandt. View "Wilson v. Brandt" on Justia Law

After Plaintiff gave birth to a child with cystic fibrosis (CF) Plaintiff filed suit to recover against the medical professionals who provided her with prenatal care and counseling. Plaintiff alleged that she would have opted to abort her pregnancy had she been timely provided with the child’s CF diagnosis while she was pregnant. The jury found that Defendants did not deviate from the standard of care when providing Plaintiff with prenatal care. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not err by admitting collateral source testimony under the rule of curative admissibility; (2) did not abuse its discretion by ruling that certain expert testimony was within the scope of its corresponding disclosure and otherwise admissible; and (3) did not err by refusing to grant a new trial or alter the judgment in response to comments made by defense counsel during closing argument. View "Evans v. Scanson" on Justia Law

Holly and Robert Labair filed a legal malpractice claim for Steve Carey and Carey Law Firm (collectively, Carey) related to Carey’s representation of them in a medical malpractice action. The district court granted summary judgment to Carey. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded to the district court for a trial to establish two required components of the damages element of the Labairs’ claim: (1) that it was more probable than not that they would have recovered a settlement or judgment but for Carey’s negligence, and (2) the value of the lost settlement and/or judgment. After a trial, the jury indicated that the Labairs would not have settled the underlying medical malpractice claim. The district court formally entered judgment in favor of Carey. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment, holding that the district court erred in instructing the jury to decide whether Plaintiffs would have settled the underlying medical malpractice suit. Remanded for a new trial on the question of the value of the lost opportunity to settle. View "Labair v. Carey" on Justia Law