Bain v. Artzer, 84,678.
Decision Date | 01 June 2001 |
Docket Number | No. 84,678.,84,678. |
Citation | 25 P.3d 136,271 Kan. 578 |
Parties | PEGGY BAIN, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF MICKY BAIN, DECEASED, and PEGGY BAIN, INDIVIDUALLY, Appellees, v. DR. DENNIS ARTZER, Appellant. |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
James D. Oliver, of Foulston & Siefkin L.L.P., of Topeka, argued the cause, and Thomas L. Theis and Caleb Stegall, of the same firm, were with him on the briefs for appellant.
Robert S. Tomassi, of Tomassi Law Firm, L.L.C., of Pittsburg, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellee.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
The appellant, Dr. Dennis Artzer, appeals from a ruling of the trial court granting the appellee, Peggy Bain, an order of voluntary dismissal without prejudice after she had presented all of her evidence at trial. Bain has filed a cross-appeal concerning the trial court's disqualification of one of her witnesses for failing to qualify as an expert pursuant to K.S.A. 60-3412.
Bain's husband Micky suffered from kidney failure in 1992. Micky was treated and placed on dialysis by his treating physician, Dr. Artzer. Artzer is a nephrologist, a physician who specializes in the care and management of patients with kidney disease. A permanent site was surgically placed in Micky's left arm. On July 5, 1996, Micky complained that he did not feel well. His condition deteriorated over the next several days. On the afternoon of July 10, 1996, Bain called an ambulance because Micky was in considerable discomfort and could not stand on his own. Micky was given antibiotics and hospitalized. Micky complained that he had flu-like symptoms and that he had redness around both the subclavian shunt and the permanent site on his left arm. Artzer treated Micky with antibiotics. Micky died on July 29, 1996.
On August 22, 1997, Bain filed a medical malpractice suit against Artzer on her own behalf and as administrator of Micky's estate. Bain alleged that Artzer had failed to treat Micky with antibiotics and failed to properly diagnose his condition.
The case was tried, commencing on October 5, 1999, over 2 years after the action was filed.
Bain's expert witness, Dr. Glenn R. Hodges, was called to the stand and voir dired on his qualifications to testify concerning the standard of care. The testimony was taken out of the presence of the jury. The testimony revealed that Hodges spent less than 50% of his time in actual clinical patient care. Artzer objected to allowing Hodges to testify as an expert on the standard of care. The trial court ruled that Hodges did not have the minimum qualifications in clinical practice as required by K.S.A. 60-3412.
After Bain rested, she moved to dismiss the case without prejudice. Artzer moved for a directed verdict on the grounds that Bain had not presented any evidence as to causation or deviation from the standard of care. The trial court sustained Bain's motion to dismiss her case with conditions and denied Artzer's motion for a directed verdict on the basis that it was moot. In its written order, the court set forth:
Bain filed a timely notice of appeal. Artzer filed a cross-appeal. This matter is before this court pursuant to K.S.A. 20-3018(c).
Before we address the substantive issues raised by the parties in this case, we first determine whether we have jurisdiction to consider this appeal. We addressed this very issue in Brower v. Bartal, 268 Kan. 43, 990 P.2d 1235 (1999). In Brower, a medical malpractice case was brought against two doctors who had surgically treated the plaintiff's spinal cord anomaly. Prior to trial, the plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss the case against Dr. Bartal without prejudice, which the trial court granted. The action against Dr. Shapiro, the other doctor, was eventually settled.
Brower filed a notice of appeal from the Bartal order of dismissal. The case was transferred to this court pursuant to K.S.A. 20-3018. We first considered whether we had jurisdiction and stated:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cohen v. Battaglia
...addressed similar, but not identical, questions. In Brower v. Bartal, 268 Kan. 43, 45-46, 990 P.2d 1235 (1999), and Bain v. Artzer, 271 Kan. 578, 579-81, 25 P.3d 136 (2001), the Kansas Supreme Court determined that an order granting a voluntary dismissal without prejudice, with conditions f......
-
DeWeese v. State
...from plaintiffs challenging trial court orders granting their motions for voluntarily dismissal without prejudice. Indeed, in Bain v. Artzer, 271 Kan. 578, Syl. ¶ 2, P.3d 136 (2001), our Supreme Court explicitly reached this holding, explaining: "A trial court's order granting a motion for ......
-
Arnold v. Hewitt, 90,247.
...their appeal was pending. Here, the plaintiffs admit that they have refiled the remaining negligence claim in district court. In Bain v. Artzer, 271 Kan. 578, Syl. ¶ 2, 25 P.3d 136 (2001), the court held: "A trial court's order granting a motion for voluntary dismissal without prejudice is ......
-
Baker v. Zmuda
... ... without prejudice is ordinarily not a final order for ... appellate purposes. See Bain v. Artzer, 271 Kan ... 578, 581, 25 P.3d 136 (2001); Cohen v. Battaglia, 41 ... ...
-
Waiting for Judgment Day: Negotiating the Interlocutory Appeal in 8 Easy Lessons
...did not automatically stay proceedings in district court). [34] Brower v. Bartal, 268 Kan. 43, 990 P.2d 1235 (1999). [35] Bain v. Artzer, 271 Kan. 578, 25 P.3d 136 (2001). This rule is different in Kansas than in most other jurisdictions, including the federal courts. [36] Arnold v. Hewitt,......