Mize v. North Big Horn Hosp. Dist., 96-8

• Decision Date: 23 January 1997
• Docket Number: No. 96-8,96-8
• Citation: 931 P.2d 229
• Parties: Thomas L. MIZE and Robin Crowley-Mize, Appellants (Plaintiffs), v. NORTH BIG HORN HOSPITAL DISTRICT, a Corporate Body; and L. Stanley Naramore, D.O., Appellees (Defendants).
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Page 229

931 P.2d 229

Thomas L. MIZE and Robin Crowley-Mize, Appellants (Plaintiffs), v. NORTH BIG HORN HOSPITAL DISTRICT, a Corporate Body; and L. Stanley Naramore, D.O., Appellees (Defendants).

No. 96-8.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

Jan. 23, 1997.

James P. Castberg, Sheridan, for appellants.

Michael K. Davis and John G. Fenn of Yonkee and Toner, Sheridan, for North Big Horn Hosp. Dist.

Robert M. Shively of Shively Law Offices, P.C., Richard R. Jamieson, Casper, for L. Stanley Naramore, D.O.

Before TAYLOR, C.J., and THOMAS, MACY, GOLDEN, ^* and LEHMAN, JJ.

TAYLOR, Chief Justice.

Late in 1993, Thomas L. Mize twice visited Stanley Naramore, D.O., complaining of back pain. Dissatisfied with the outcome, Mr. Mize and his wife sued Dr. Naramore and the hospital he worked for, alleging that Dr. Naramore's treatment left Mr. Mize a virtual cripple with an equally debilitating drug dependency. Unable to generate any genuine issue of material fact concerning the cause of Mr. Mize's ills, appellants saw their case succumb to summary judgment. We affirm.

I. ISSUES

Appellants posit the following errors in the district court's handling of their case:

I. The trial court erred in granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment, after entering a protective order preventing the plaintiffs from taking the deposition of defendant Naramore.

II. The trial court erred in granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment in relying on Dr. Campbell's affidavit and supplemental affidavit and finding that the plaintiffs failed to establish causation.

III. The trial court erred in granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment in that there were many genuine issues of material fact.

Appellee, North Big Horn Hospital District (the hospital), presents a single issue for review:

Did the Trial Court properly grant summary judgment in this medical malpractice case when Appellants were unable to produce expert testimony to establish that errors claimed on the part of Dr. Naramore caused Plaintiff Tom Mize['s] injury?

Appellee, L. Stanley Naramore, D.O. (Dr. Naramore), states the following issues:

I. Whether the district court erred in considering the affidavit of Mark T. Murphy, M.D.?

II. Whether the appellants failed to take advantage of court orders and court rules which would have allowed them to take the appellee Naramore's deposition prior to the hearing for summary judgment?

III. Whether the trial court properly granted summary judgment for the reason that there was no genuine issue of material fact on the issue of causation and that appellees were entitled to judgment as a matter of law?

II. FACTS

Thomas L. Mize (Mize) suffered chronic back problems of an unspecified nature. Prior to seeing Dr. Naramore, Mize had been taking substantial amounts of analgesic medications. In November of 1993, Dr. Naramore examined Mize who was complaining of back pain occasioned by arising from a sofa. The nature and extent of that examination, as well as whether or not a follow-up visit was arranged, are matters of dispute between Dr. Naramore and appellants. The parties agree, however, that Dr. Naramore prescribed several medications for Mize's pain and ordered bed rest. Approximately one week later, Mize returned to his normal activities while continuing to use the medications prescribed by Dr. Naramore, who placed no restrictions on Mize's activities. Mize continued to experience pain in his back and legs.

On December 29, 1993, Mize suffered increased pain in his back which radiated down his legs following strenuous exertion. The next day, Mize saw Dr. Naramore and was admitted to the hospital. The nature of Dr. Naramore's treatment and Mize's compliance with Dr. Naramore's directions are in dispute. Suffice it to say that Mize left the hospital one day later of the opinion that he was deriving no benefit from hospitalization and would feel more comfortable at home.

Three months later, Mize saw a medical doctor who diagnosed chronic back pain with signs and symptoms of a herniated disc, depression, and probable narcotic addiction. The medical doctor placed Mize on several medications, including pain medications which were similar to those prescribed by Dr. Naramore but not as addictive.

Appellants filed suit in Big Horn County, alleging seven counts of negligence on the part of Dr. Naramore and the hospital. Based upon adverse publicity in the Big Horn Basin, Dr. Naramore asked for and eventually received a transfer of trial. However, Dr. Naramore's civil problems in Wyoming remained marginal compared to pending homicide charges in Kansas, to which state he was extradited in mid-1994. Repeated efforts by appellants to depose Dr. Naramore were frustrated by the attorney representing Dr. Naramore in Kansas, notwithstanding the Wyoming court's efforts to insure that Dr. Naramore would not be prejudiced in the Kansas matter by submitting to a deposition in the instant case.

Notwithstanding his unavailability for deposition, Dr. Naramore filed a motion for summary judgment, supported by the affidavit of another Doctor of Osteopathy. The hospital joined in that motion and a supplemental affidavit was also filed, directly addressing the issue of causation. After asking for additional time in which to depose Dr. Naramore, appellants filed their response to appellees' motion for summary judgment, supported by affidavits of Mr. and Mrs. Mize, as well as that of the medical doctor who saw Mr. Mize three months after his hospitalization. The district court denied appellants' request for additional time, while providing them the following accommodation:

To the extent that any expert listed by the plaintiff in good faith believes that it requires testimony from the defendant L. Stanley Naramore, D.O. in order to support any opinion testimony that he might have, he shall so state by affidavit timely filed.

No such affidavit was filed and the district court granted summary judgment to Dr. Naramore and the hospital predicated upon appellants' failure to establish any material issue of fact as to the causation of Mr. Mize's medical problems. This timely appeal follows.

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Little mystery remains concerning our willingness to affirm summary judgments, provided there is no genuine issue of material fact and the law clearly entitles the moving party to prevail. Martin v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, 894 P.2d 618, 620 (Wyo.1995). We consider summary judgment from the same perspective employed by the district court, using the same materials and standards, examining the record in a light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment and giving that party the benefit of all favorable inferences fairly to be drawn from the record. Martin v. Alley Const., Inc., 904 P.2d 828, 831 (Wyo.1995).

The moving party bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case for summary judgment. Thereafter, the party opposing summary judgment becomes obliged to marshal specific facts, as contrasted with general or conclusory allegations, which establish a genuine issue of material fact. Tidwell v. HOM, Inc., 896 P.2d 1322, 1324-25 (Wyo.1995).

A material fact has been defined as one having some legal significance, that is, under the law applicable to a given case, it would control in some way the legal relations of the parties; as one upon which the outcome of litigation depends in whole or in part; as one on which the controversy may be determined; as one which will affect the result or outcome of the case depending upon its resolution; and one which constitutes a part of the plaintiff's cause of action or of the defendant's defense.

Johnson v. Soulis, 542 P.2d 867, 871-72 (Wyo.1975) (footnotes omitted).

IV. DISCUSSION

A. INABILITY TO DEPOSE DR. NARAMORE

Appellants claim that their case was prejudiced by their inability to depose Dr. Naramore prior to the summary judgment hearing. The hospital acknowledges that it is normal practice for plaintiffs in a malpractice case to depose a defendant physician, a proposition with which neither the district court nor this court has any difficulty. It was the plaintiffs, however, who initially pressed the issue, over Dr. Naramore's motion for stay in all proceedings, protesting that such a stay "would unduly delay, hinder, and handicap the Plaintiffs in the preparation for trial and the final determination of the issues in this matter." Although appellants finally relented, moving for a continuance pending Dr. Naramore's availability, the district court...