Magrans v. Andrada
| Decision Date | 27 January 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. CV-18-699,CV-18-699 |
| Citation | 2021 Ark. App. 35,616 S.W.3d 668 |
| Parties | Carolyn MAGRANS, as General Personal Representative of the Estate of Ramon Magrans, Deceased; and the Wrongful Death Beneficiaries of Ramon Magrans, Deceased, Appellants v. Edward Lucas ANDRADA, M.D.; Sarah Robertson, M.D.; Sarah Robertson, M.D., P.A.; and Radiologists of Russellville, P.A., Appellees |
| Court | Arkansas Court of Appeals |
James E. Girards ; and Brian G. Brooks, Attorney at Law, PLLC, by: Brian G. Brooks, for appellant.
Wright, Lindsey & Jennings LLP, Little Rock, by: David P. Glover, Gary D. Marts, and David C. Jung, for separate appellee Edward Lucas Andrada, M.D.
Friday, Eldredge & Clark, LLP, Little Rock, by: Tyler D. Bone and Donald H. Bacon, for separate appellees Sarah Robertson, M.D., and Sarah Robertson, M.D., P.A.
Anderson, Murphy & Hopkins, L.L.P., by: Mariam T. Hopkins, Little Rock, Julia M. Hancock, and Mark D. Wankum, Little Rock, for separate appellee Radiologists of Russellville, P.A.
This appeal arises from three separate orders granting summary judgment to the appellees in a medical-negligence action. The appellants are Carolyn Magrans, the personal representative of the estate of Ramon Magrans, deceased, and the wrongful death beneficiaries of Ramon Magrans (collectively the "Magranses"). The appellees, Radiologists of Russellville, P.A.; Dr. Edward Lucas Andrada; Dr. Sarah Robertson; and Sarah Robertson, M.D., P.A., are the physicians or their employers who rendered medical care to Ramon Magrans (Ramon).
On October 13, 2016, the circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Radiologists of Russellville, P.A. (ROR), and on May 10, 2018, entered two separate orders granting summary judgment in favor of Dr. Edward Lucas Andrada (Dr. Andrada); and Sarah Robertson, M.D., and Sarah Robertson, M.D., P.A. (collectively "Dr. Robertson"). The Magranses filed a timely notice of appeal on May 31, 2018.
On November 17, 2012, Ramon suffered a fall in his bathroom injuring his face, head, neck, and chest and unknowingly fractured vertebras in his spine. Ramon obtained a computed tomography (CT) angiogram of his spine at ROR, and the results were read by a physician employed at the facility named Jeffrey A. Hale, M.D., on December 14, 2012. The CT scan allegedly showed multiple recent compression fractures of the spine, but no notation of the abnormalities was made in the report.
On January 18, 2013, Ramon went to Millard-Henry Clinic in Russellville and was seen by his primary care physician, Dr. Andrada. Ramon complained of weakness in his legs and difficulty walking. Dr. Andrada observed that Ramon could walk but did have decreased strength; therefore, he prescribed steroid medication and ordered a lumbar magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for the following week.
On January 21, 2013, Ramon went to the emergency department at Saint Mary's Regional Medical Center. Upon admittance, Ramon was treated by Dr. Robertson. Dr. Robertson called a neurologist at University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (UAMS) to discuss a potential transfer but was advised that because Ramon had no loss of sensation in his lower extremities and no incontinence issues, he did not warrant neurological intervention and there was no need for transfer at that time. Dr. Robertson also ordered an MRI of Ramon's lumbar spine. The next morning, before the MRI results were received, the nursing staff noted Ramon could not move his lower extremities. Dr. Robertson was notified of the change in Ramon's condition and, after evaluating him, called both Baptist Health Medical Center-Little Rock (Baptist Health) and UAMS to get him transferred to a higher level of care. Neither facility had a bed available. Ultimately, Baptist Health accepted Ramon and he was transferred to Little Rock on January 23, 2013. Ramon then underwent imaging of his entire spinal axis, which revealed compression fractures and retropulsion of bone causing compression of the spinal cord. On January 31, 2013, Ramon was transferred to UAMS; however, Ramon was permanently paraplegic.
Regarding Dr. Andrada, the Magranses alleged he "failed to properly evaluate and treat Ramon Magrans's spinal injuries, resulting in Magrans's permanent paralysis, disability, and Plaintiffs’ damages."
On January 15, 2015, the Magranses amended their complaint and added Jeffrey A. Hale, M.D. (Dr. Hale); Sarah Robertson, M.D.; and Sarah Robertson, M.D., P.A., as defendants. Dr. Hale is the radiologist at ROR who read Ramon's CT scan. The second amended complaint alleged the CT angiogram showed multiple compression fractures of Ramon's spine, and such findings should have been identified in the report with a suggestion that specific imaging be done to evaluate those fractures. As to Dr. Robertson, the complaint alleged she failed to provide medical evaluation, assessment, and treatment that met the applicable standards of care. The Magranses also alleged Sarah Robertson, M.D., P.A., failed to have proper policies and procedures in place to assure proper evaluation and diagnosis of Ramon.
Dr. Hale moved for summary judgment arguing all claims against him were barred by the statute of limitations. Ramon did not oppose summary judgment in favor of Dr. Hale, and the circuit court granted his motion and dismissed him with prejudice. In response, ROR filed its motion for summary judgment alleging the Magranses were precluded from maintaining their vicarious-liability claim, citing Arkansas law that states when an employee has been released or dismissed and the employer has been sued solely on a theory of vicarious liability, any liability of the employer is likewise eliminated. The Magranses filed their fourth amended complaint on October 10, 2016, the day before the hearing on ROR's motion. The amended complaint included an allegation that Paul Sarai, M.D., was a radiologist who was also involved with the CT angiogram that was performed at ROR. The amendment, however, did not include Dr. Sarai as a party to the lawsuit.
On October 11, 2016, the circuit court conducted a hearing on the motion. The circuit court orally granted summary judgment, and the ruling was reduced to a written order and filed on October 13, 2016. The order held that (1) the vicarious liability claims against ROR must fail because Arkansas law is clear that a principal cannot be vicariously liable for the acts of its agent when the liability of the agent has been eliminated; (2) ROR's alleged deviation from the standard of care was not supported by any expert testimony, and even if it had been, the Magranses could not prove causation as to this claim because they would be precluded from introducing evidence of Dr. Hale's alleged improper interpretation of the CT angiogram ; and (3) there was no merit to the claim of negligence on the part of ROR with respect to the preliminary interpretation of the CT angiogram provided by Dr. Paul Sarai because the only report at issue and included in the medical report was performed by Dr. Hale.
On April 10, 2018, Dr. Robertson filed for summary judgment and alleged the Magranses could not meet their burden of proof because they do not have the requisite expert testimony to demonstrate any action or omission of Dr. Robertson proximately caused Ramon to suffer injuries that would have otherwise not occurred. Additionally, on April 18, 2018, Dr. Andrada filed for summary judgment and argued Ramon lacked expert testimony to prove proximate causation to support a judgment. The Magranses objected to both motions, arguing that an emergent MRI would have revealed the compression fractures and led to a different outcome for Ramon.
On May 8, 2018, the circuit court held a hearing on the pending summary-judgment motions. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court took the matters under advisement. On May 10, 2018, the circuit court granted summary judgment in full to Dr. Robertson and Sarah Robertson, M.D., P.A., as well as Dr. Andrada by two separate orders. Both orders stated the Magranses failed to create an issue of material fact to be tried regarding the element of causation necessary to prove the defendants caused Ramon's injuries. Dr. Robertson and Dr. Andrada were both dismissed with prejudice in their entirety.1 This appeal followed.2
On appeal, the Magranses argue that (1) it was error for the circuit court to grant summary judgment to ROR alleging that termination of Dr. Hale's liability did not terminate ROR's liability; and (2) it was error for the circuit court to grant summary judgment to Dr. Andrada and Dr. Robertson because they presented expert testimony showing each doctor's negligence was the proximate cause of Ramon's paralysis.
Our supreme court has held that when reviewing whether a motion for summary judgment should have been granted, we determine whether the evidentiary items presented by the moving party in support of the motion left a material question of fact unanswered. Flentje v. First Nat'l Bank of Wynne , 340 Ark. 563, 11 S.W.3d 531 (2000). The burden of sustaining a motion for summary judgment is always the responsibility of the moving party. Id. All proof submitted must be viewed in a light most favorable to the party resisting the motion, and any doubts and inferences must be resolved against the moving party. Id. Summary judgment is no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McKee v. Correct Care Sols.
...Arkansas state law negligence claim against Correct Care Solutions, LLC should be dismissed because of the holding in Magrans v. Andrada, 2021 Ark. App. 35, 616 S.W.3d 668. (ECF No. 104, ¶6). At the time Defendants filed their motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 104), Magrans was an unpubl......