Stroth v. N. Lincoln Cnty. Hosp. Dist.

• Decision Date: 23 June 2014
• Docket Number: Nos. S–13–0181,S–13–0221.,s. S–13–0181
• Citation: 327 P.3d 121
• Parties: Holly STROTH, Personal Representative of the Wrongful Death Estate of Gary Carl Stroth, Appellant (Plaintiff), v. NORTH LINCOLN COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT, d/b/a Star Valley Medical Center, Appellee (Defendant). Holly Stroth, Personal Representative of the Wrongful Death Estate of Gary Carl Stroth, Appellant (Plaintiff), v. Thayne Ambulance Service (EMS) and Town of Thayne, Wyoming, Appellees (Defendants).
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

327 P.3d 121

Holly STROTH, Personal Representative of the Wrongful Death Estate of Gary Carl Stroth, Appellant (Plaintiff),

v.NORTH LINCOLN COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT, d/b/a Star Valley Medical Center, Appellee (Defendant).

Holly Stroth, Personal Representative of the Wrongful Death Estate of Gary Carl Stroth, Appellant (Plaintiff),

v.Thayne Ambulance Service (EMS) and Town of Thayne, Wyoming, Appellees (Defendants).

Nos. S–13–0181, S–13–0221.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

June 23, 2014.

Representing Appellant: William R. Fix, William R. Fix, P.C., Jackson, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee, North Lincoln County Hospital District (S–13–0181): W. Henry Combs, III and Andrew F. Sears, Murane and Bostwick, LLC, Casper, Wyoming. Argument by Mr. Sears.

Representing Appellees, Thayne Ambulance Service (EMS) and Town of Thayne, Wyoming (S–13–0221): Spencer L. Allred and John D. Bowers, Bowers Law Firm, Afton, Wyoming. Argument by Mr. Allred.

Before KITE, C.J., and HILL, BURKE, DAVIS, and FOX, JJ.

BURKE, Justice.

[¶ 1] This case involves a claim arising under the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act (WGCA), Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 1–39–101 through –121 (LexisNexis 2009). Appellant, Holly Stroth, as personal representative of the estate of the decedent, Gary Carl Stroth, filed a wrongful death action against the North Lincoln County Hospital District (d/b/a Star Valley Medical Center), the Town of Thayne, Wyoming, and the Thayne Ambulance Service. The district court dismissed the action, finding that Appellant had not filed a notice of claim within two years, as required under the WGCA. We affirm.

ISSUES

[¶ 2] Appellant presents the following issues:

1. Did the district court err when it failed to apply the tolling provision of the Medical Review Panel Act to toll the period for filing a notice of governmental claim set forth in the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act?

2. Did the district court err by failing to consider the “continuous treatment” doctrine?

Appellees phrase the issues in a substantially similar manner.

FACTS

[¶ 3] Appellant pursued an action for wrongful death on behalf of Mr. Stroth's estate based on alleged negligent treatment Mr. Stroth received during transport to, and in the emergency room of, the Star Valley Medical Center. Prior to filing her complaint in the district court, Appellant submitted a notice of claim against the Hospital to the Medical Review Panel ¹ on July 6, 2011, and the Hospital waived any further proceedings before the Panel on September 9, 2011. Appellant subsequently presented notice of her claim to the Hospital on October 11, 2012, in an attempt to comply with the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act.² The following day, Appellant submitted a second notice of claim to the Medical Review Panel, which added claims against the Town of Thayne and the Thayne Ambulance Service. On October 15, 2012, Appellant filed her complaint in Lincoln County District Court.

[¶ 4] Appellant's complaint generally alleged that the Hospital and the Ambulance Service were negligent in their care of Mr. Stroth, and that this negligence resulted in Mr. Stroth's wrongful death. The complaint further alleged that the Town of Thayne was vicariously liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior “for the acts and omissions of its employees, agents, and representatives, including, but not limited to, employees, staff, and/or emergency medical technicians at Thayne Ambulance Service.” ³ Appellant's notice of claim filed with the Medical Review Panel on July 6 was attached to and incorporated into her complaint. The notice of claim set forth the following description of the events leading up to Mr. Stroth's death:

On September 23, 2010, Carl Stroth became very sick in the middle of the night. His wife, Holly Stroth called 911 and requested an ambulance. It took 1–2 hours for the ambulance to arrive. Holly rode with Carl in the ambulance to the hospital. Carl was transported on a gurney. He was lying on his back with an oxygen mask on his face. At one point, Carl threw up in his oxygen mask. The nurses were not paying attention so Holly alerted them, and they took off Carl's oxygen mask.

Upon arriving in the emergency room at Star Valley Medical Center, Carl was still on the gurney, and he was surrounded by hospital employees. As Carl continued to lie on his back, he threw up a second time with the oxygen mask off his face. A few minutes later, Carl threw up a third time at which point one of the nurses stepped back[ ] and exclaimed “Eoooow”. No nurse tried to turn Carl on his side to make sure that he did not aspirate on his vomit. Carl then threw up a fourth time. This all occurred at about 4:30 a.m.

Carl was thereafter life flighted to [Eastern Idaho Regional Medical Center] in Idaho Falls. Chest X-rays taken of Carl at EIRMC showed that he had aspirated some of the vomit and had contracted aspiration pneumonia as he had a foreign body in his lungs.⁴ After a few days at EIRMC, Carl seemed to be getting better and was allowed to go home. He was home for a few days and then he started getting worse. Holly took her husband back to EIRMC. EIRMC doctors were never able to stabilize Carl after he went back into the hospital, and he began bleeding in his stomach. He died October 13, 2010, from complications of his treatment at Star Valley Medical Center.

The conduct of the staff and the nurses at Star Valley Medical Center was inappropriate and substandard and did not follow protocol in that they should have reacted to Carl vomiting and immediately turned him [on] his side to prevent him from swallowing his own vomit. Due to the failure to react appropriately to Carl's vomiting, he swallowed his own vomit which eventually led to him contracting pneumonia and dying.

Star Valley Medical Center is liable to Claimant for the wrongful death of Carl Stroth. Such liability arises out of the professional negligence of the hospital staff and employees.

Star Valley Medical Center breached its duty of care to Carl Stroth through its negligent acts and omissions. Star Valley Medical Center breached its duty to provide proper emergency care to Carl Stroth. The wrongful conduct of the hospital as alleged herein was the proximate cause of Carl Stroth's death as described herein.

[¶ 5] Pursuant to W.R.C.P. 12(b)(6), the Hospital filed a motion to dismiss Appellant's complaint. The Town of Thayne and the Thayne Ambulance Service also filed a joint motion to dismiss based on Rule 12(b)(6). In the memoranda supporting their motions, the defendants asserted that Appellant had failed to present notice of her claim within two years of the “alleged act, error or omission,” as required under the Governmental Claims Act. Following a hearing on April 8, 2013, at which all parties participated, the court granted the Hospital's motion to dismiss after determining that Appellant's claim had not been timely filed under the Governmental Claims Act. The court's order did not mention the Town of Thayne or the Thayne Ambulance Service. After this oversight was brought to the court's attention, the court entered a separate order dismissing the Town of Thayne and the Thayne Ambulance Service. Appellant timely filed notices of appeal from the district court's orders, and the appeals were consolidated for argument and decision.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[¶ 6] When reviewing W.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss, we accept the facts stated in the complaint as true and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. We will sustain such a dismissal when it is certain from the face of the complaint that the plaintiff cannot assert any fact which would entitle him to relief. Sinclair v. City of Gillette, 2012 WY 19, ¶ 8, 270 P.3d 644, 646 (Wyo.2012). Although we view the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, we have also stated that “Liberal construction of pleadings does not excuse omission of that which is material and necessary in order to entitle one to relief.” Excel Constr., Inc. v. HKM Eng'g, Inc., 2010 WY 34, ¶ 35, 228 P.3d 40, 49 (Wyo.2010) (citing William F. West Ranch, LLC v. Tyrrell, 2009 WY 62, ¶ 9, 206 P.3d 722, 726 (Wyo.2009)).

[¶ 7] We must interpret the provisions of the WGCA and the Medical Review Panel Act in order to determine whether Appellant's notice of claim was timely filed under the WGCA.

When we interpret statutes, our goal is to give effect to the intent of the legislature, and we “attempt to determine the legislature's intent based primarily on the plain and ordinary meaning of the words used in the statute.” Krenning v. Heart Mountain Irrigation Dist., 2009 WY 11, ¶ 9, 200 P.3d 774, 778 (Wyo.2009). Statutory interpretation presents a question of law, so our review of the district court's conclusions is de novo. Id.; Sinclair Oil Corp. v. Wyo. Dep't of Revenue, 2010 WY 122, ¶ 7, 238 P.3d 568, 570 (Wyo.2010).

With specific regard to the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act, we have said that we should not “enlarge, stretch, expand[,] or extend” the statutory language to include “matters not falling within its express provisions.” State v. Watts, 2008 WY 19, ¶ 19, 177 P.3d 793, 798 (Wyo.2008). Instead, we use our “standard rules” of statutory interpretation “to determine whether the legislature intended that immunity be waived for a particular claim and will not resort to reliance upon previous unsupported and unnecessary suggestions that the act is to be interpreted either liberally or strictly.” Id., ¶ 20, 177 P.3d at 798–99.

Sinclair, ¶¶ 8–9, 270 P.3d at 646.

DISCUSSION

[¶ 8] The Wyoming Governmental Claims Act “provides broad governmental immunity from tort liability.” Id., ¶ 10, 270 P.3d at 646 (quoting Krenning, ¶ 21, 200 P.3d at 781). Certain enumerated activities, however, are excepted from the general immunity rule. Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 1–39–105 through –112. The Act provides that “[a] governmental entity is liable for damages resulting from bodily injury, wrongful death or property damage caused by the negligence of...