Gos v. Brownstein

• Decision Date: 17 August 1988
• Citation: 403 Mass. 252,526 N.E.2d 1267
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

Page 1267

526 N.E.2d 1267

403 Mass. 252

Irena GOS v. Fredric BROWNSTEIN et al. ¹ Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Hampden.

Argued May 2, 1988.

Decided Aug. 17, 1988.

Louis Kerlinsky, Springfield, for plaintiff.

Felicity Hardee, Springfield, for Valley Obstetrical & Gynecological Associates.

Melinda Phelps, Springfield, for Frederic Brownstein, was present but did not argue.

Before HENNESSEY, C.J., and WILKINS, NOLAN, LYNCH and O'CONNOR, JJ.

LYNCH, Justice.

The plaintiff appeals from the dismissal of her medical malpractice action for failure to attend a deposition, and from the denial of her application pursuant to G.L. c. 261, § 27C(1), for payment of transportation expenses of the defendants' counsel to be incurred in taking the plaintiff's deposition in Poland. We transferred the case here on our own motion. We vacate that part of the order which dismissed the action and remand the case for further proceedings.

The plaintiff, Irena Gos, is a resident of Poland who, on November 6, 1979, while visiting her sister in Springfield, Massachusetts, underwent a laparoscopic tubal ligation. The surgery was performed by the defendant doctor, then an employee of defendant Valley Obstetrical & Gynecological Associates (Valley). Gos returned to Poland on November 19, 1979, where she has since resided.

On November 3, 1982, Gos filed suit against Dr. Brownstein and Valley alleging, inter alia, that she became pregnant in August, 1980, underwent an abortion on October 21, 1980, and thereby suffered physical, emotional, and economic damages. Among the various theories of recovery are counts alleging negligence and breach of contract.

On September 16, 1985, Dr. Brownstein noticed the plaintiff's deposition. Gos moved, on September 24, 1985, for a protective order on the grounds that she was without funds to travel from Poland, and was then under psychiatric care in a mental institution. After a hearing in the Superior Court the judge took no action on the motion, but allowed Gos two months in which to provide affidavits concerning her health and claim of indigency.

A second hearing on the plaintiff's motion for a protective order was held before another judge on December 5, 1985. Based upon an affidavit attesting that Gos had recently been discharged from the hospital, the judge allowed the plaintiff's motion with the proviso that the case was "to be dismissed if plaintiff is not deposed within six (6) months." The plaintiff filed an objection to this order on December 18, 1985.

On May 20, 1986, the plaintiff moved for an extension of the six-month period on the ground that she was unable to obtain a visa to enter the United States. After a hearing, the judge, in a memorandum and order dated June 11, 1986, extended the protective order until December 5, 1986, and stated that the plaintiff had "one more opportunity to make herself available to be deposed in this county or to provide the defendants with a reasonable and effective alternative."

On November 21, 1986, the plaintiff requested a further extension in another motion for a protective order, citing collateral litigation aimed at compelling issuance of a visa. This motion was followed, on December 1, 1986, by a motion entitled "Plaintiff's motion that the defendant's [sic] take the deposition of the plaintiff in Poland," in which the plaintiff requested that the Commonwealth pay travel expenses of the defendants' attorney, and a motion to allow her affidavit of indigency, pursuant to G.L. c. 261, § 27. On December 22, 1986, the judge denied the plaintiff's motions and dismissed the action. ²

Pursuant to G.L. c. 261, § 27D, the plaintiff appealed to a single justice of the Appeals Court from the denial of her motions seeking court payment of deposition-related expenses. The single justice affirmed the judge's order without a written opinion. The plaintiff then attempted to appeal that order of the single justice to the Appeals Court. The notice of appeal and related filings were struck from the docket for the reason that G.L. c. 261, § 27D, expressly provides that the decision of the single justice is final.

We first consider briefly the plaintiff's appeal from the denial of her G.L. c. 261 § 27D, motion. It is settled that the decision of a single justice of the Appeals Court, affirming a judge's denial of a motion for funds, is final under G.L. c. 261, § 27D. Commonwealth v. Pope, 392 Mass. 493, 502, 467 N.E.2d 117 (1984).

The plaintiff's reliance on Commonwealth v. Lockley, 381 Mass. 156, 159-160, 408 N.E.2d 834 (1980), is misplaced. She alleges that she was never informed by the judge of her right to appeal. The contention is irrelevant where the plaintiff did, in fact, appeal and, accordingly received all the appellate review to which she was entitled. Nor are we presented with any other reason why the plain meaning of the statute should not control its construction. Contrast Commonwealth v. Souza, 397 Mass. 236, 240 n. 5, 490 N.E.2d 1173 (1986).

We turn now to the issues presented by the dismissal of the action. The plaintiff contends that, where her failure to give her deposition has been "due to inability, and not to willfulness, bad faith, or any fault," Societe Internationale Pour Participations Industrielles et Commerciales, S.A. v. Rogers, 357 U.S. 197, 212, 78 S.Ct. 1087, 1096, 2 L.Ed.2d 1255 (1958), dismissal of her suit was unconstitutional. The defendants' position is that the severe sanction of dismissal was ordered pursuant to, and was a permissible exercise of, discretion under the court's inherent power to manage the case. They argue further that dismissal would have been justified as a sanction either for failure to prosecute, Mass.R.Civ.P. 41(b), or failure to comply with an order to provide discovery, Mass.R.Civ.P. 37(b), as amended, 390 Mass. 1208 (1984). Whether the order is examined as an exercise of inherent authority or as a sanction imposed in accordance with the rules of civil procedure, we are unable to conclude on this record that dismissal of the plaintiff's action was justified. We, therefore, remand the case for further proceedings.

It is within the limits of due process to dismiss a complaint because of a petitioner's noncompliance with a pretrial production order where the failure to comply is not due to an inability to comply. Societe Internationale v. Rogers, supra 357 U.S. at 212, 78 S.Ct. at 1096. Roxse Homes Ltd. Partnership v. Roxse Homes, Inc., 399 Mass. 401, 406 n. 7, 504 N.E.2d 633 (1987). It must be kept in mind, however, that due process places limits "upon the power of courts, even in aid of their own valid processes, to dismiss an action without affording a party the opportunity for a hearing on the merits of his cause." Societe Internationale v. Rogers, supra 357 U.S. at 209, 78 S.Ct. at 1094. The same considerations pertain in the context of involuntary dismissal for failure to prosecute. See Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 636, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 1391, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962), quoting Societe Internationale v. Rogers, supra 357 U.S. at 211, 78 S.Ct. at 1095 (no abuse of discretion where case was not one "in which failure to comply with a court order 'was due to inability fostered neither by ... [petitioner's] own conduct nor by circumstances within its control' "). In view of those constitutional constraints, the Supreme Court has construed Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b) as not authorizing dismissal for noncompliance with a pretrial production order when it has been established that failure to comply has been due to an inability to comply and not wilfulness, bad faith, or any fault of petitioner. Societe Internationale v. Rogers, supra at 212, 78 S.Ct. at 1096.

Neither Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b), nor Mass.R.Civ.P. 37(b) requires that a party's failure to comply with a court order be wilful before sanctions may be imposed. Effective January 1, 1984, Mass.R.Civ.P. 37(b) was amended to be consistent with Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b), upon which it was patterned. See 390 Mass. 1208 (1984). That amendment eliminated the...