Archibeque v. Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Ry. Co., 94-2215

Decision Date24 November 1995
Docket NumberNo. 94-2215,94-2215
Citation70 F.3d 1172
PartiesLinda Sue ARCHIBEQUE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit

Michael B. Michelson, of Gaines & Stern Co., L.P.A., Cleveland, Ohio (Michael J. Rogan, of Gaines & Stern Co., L.P.A., Cleveland, Ohio, and Mark Riley, of Padilla, Riley & Shane P.A., Albuquerque, New Mexico, with him on the briefs), for Plaintiff-Appellant.

John S. Thal (J.H. Mahaney, with him on the brief), of Atkinson & Thal, P.C., Albuquerque, New Mexico, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before KELLY and SETH, Circuit Judges, and BROWN, District Judge *.

SETH, Circuit Judge.

Appellant Linda Sue Archibeque appeals the dismissal with prejudice of her complaint against the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company (AT & SF). The dismissal was based on the district court's determination that Appellant willfully provided false and misleading answers on a continual basis during the discovery process. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(d).

Appellant brought her complaint under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, 45 U.S.C. Secs. 51-60, seeking damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained while working for AT & SF. Specifically, she maintains that she suffered a herniated disk in her lower back as a result of a December 29, 1990 unwitnessed work-related accident.

In its answer to Appellant's complaint, AT & SF asserts that the injury predated December 1990, or that it was a result of an accident suffered subsequent to the alleged December 1990 mishap. Because Appellant had suffered other injuries, including automobile accidents in July 1990 and July 1992, AT & SF requested a complete set of medical records by which its experts could evaluate Appellant's claim and plan a defense. AT & SF also raised the question as to the number of accidents in which Appellant had been involved. This was on October 8, 1993 during a conference before the magistrate judge.

In response to AT & SF's request for complete medical records and a complete list of health care providers that had treated Appellant in the past, Appellant listed a variety of providers and a corresponding list of the medical conditions. In her responses, there was no mention of any lower back or tailbone symptoms in existence prior to December 1990. In fact, when asked what other serious physical injuries she had experienced since 1975, Appellant listed the alleged December 1990 accident, the car accidents mentioned above, and a bicycle accident in 1987. There was no reference to lower back or tailbone injuries prior to 1990. Appellant signed a sworn verification as to the truth of her answers, and signed a statement that the medical records provided were complete. In addition, Appellant stated that she had not had her lower back X-rayed prior to the December 1990 injury. Finally, Appellant stated in her deposition that she had no recollection of lower back pain prior to the December 1990 accident.

Subsequent to the responses and deposition testimony provided by Appellant, AT & SF sought to independently confirm the veracity of the responses. Through this effort, AT & SF was able to determine that for over ten years prior to the alleged December 1990 accident Appellant had sought and received medical treatment for lower back and tailbone pain. Specifically, the documents uncovered by AT & SF indicate that on over fifteen occasions, involving at least six physicians, Appellant sought treatment for a variety of lower back ailments and related symptoms.

The records uncovered by AT & SF indicate that from 1980 to 1984, Appellant complained to Dr. Farid Sada of constant pain in the lower back area, "numbness & tingling [in the] right hip," and pain in the left hip and tailbone leaving her hardly able to sit. Aplt.App. at 63-64. On April 24, 1984 X-rays were taken of Appellant's hips and lower back.

In 1984 Appellant also visited Lovelace Medical Center on several occasions complaining of constant pain in her tailbone that would shoot into her thigh and into her buttocks. More X-rays were taken and she saw several physicians within Lovelace's orthopedic department. Id. at 66-71. In a 1986 visit to Caremore Chiropractic Center Appellant indicated that she had experienced lower back pain for five or six years prior to the visit. Id. at 74. In 1989, Appellant again indicated in her medical claim to a separate physician a history of lower back and tailbone pain. Indeed, Appellant sought medical treatment for lower back pain through July of 1990. Id. at 84-86.

Following its discoveries, AT & SF brought its Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(d), asserting that Appellant attempted to conceal her medical history, repeatedly perjured herself, and thus failed to cooperate in the discovery process. Appellant's attorney filed a brief in opposition to the motion, stating that her problems were with her tailbone rather than her lower back and that her failure to disclose her past medical history was merely oversight. She did not file amended interrogatory responses or an affidavit regarding her compliance with the discovery process. She has at no time, even in her arguments to this court on appeal, explained her conduct. Instead, she concludes in her brief to this court that she "fully cooperated in the discovery process."

The district court granted AT & SF's motion, finding that Appellant's failure "to disclose her numerous complaints and treatments involving her lower back and tailbone ... [could not] reasonably be classified as 'mere oversight.' " The court further found that Appellant's actions "irreparably prejudiced [AT & SF] in the preparation of its defense." Finally, the court noted that Appellant's conduct "seriously interfered with the judicial process."

The imposition of the sanction of dismissal is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. National Hockey League v....

To continue reading

Request your trial
187 cases
  • Kellogg v. Watts Guerra LLP
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • 26 Julio 2022
    ...City of Albuquerque , 402 F.3d 1039, 1044 (10th Cir. 2005) (emphasis added) (cleaned up); see also Archibeque v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. , 70 F.3d 1172, 1174 (10th Cir. 1995) ("[D]ue process requires that the discovery violation be predicated upon willfulness, bad faith, or some......
  • O'Brien v. Mitchell
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico
    • 21 Julio 2012
    ...(10th Cir.2007)(unpublished); McGuinness v. Univ. N.M. Sch. of Med., 170 F.3d 974, 980 (10th Cir.1998); Archibeque v. Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Ry. Co., 70 F.3d 1172 (10th Cir.1995); MSJ ¶ 45, at 19 (setting forth this fact); Response at 16 (not disputing this fact).PROCEDURAL BACKGROUN......
  • Keene v. Brigham and Women's Hospital, Inc.
    • United States
    • Appeals Court of Massachusetts
    • 19 Septiembre 2002
    ...910 F.2d 652, 656 (9th Cir.1990); Velazquez-Rivera v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc., 920 F.2d at 1076-1078; Archibeque v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 70 F.3d 1172, 1174 (10th Cir. 1995); Bass v. Jostens, Inc., 71 F.3d 237, 241 (6th Cir.1995). See also 8A Wright, Miller & Marcus, Federal Pra......
  • Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co. v. Sumner
    • United States
    • Kansas Court of Appeals
    • 29 Octubre 2010
    ...See Ecclesiastes 9:10-11-12, Inc. v. LMC Holding Co., 497 F.3d 1135, 1149-50 (10th Cir.2007); Archibeque v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 70 F.3d 1172, 1175 (10th Cir.1995). We take a page from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in stating that we intend our de......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT