Richards v. KRMC

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