Weidrick v. Arnold
| Citation | 310 Ark. 138,835 S.W.2d 843 |
| Decision Date | 29 June 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 91-364,91-364 |
| Parties | Brian M. WEIDRICK, Appellant, v. James A. ARNOLD, M.D. and Springdale Memorial Hospital, Appellees. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Raymond C. Smith, Fayetteville, for appellant.
Walker Dale Garrett, Fayetteville, for appellees.
The appellant, Brian M. Weidrick, failed to comply with the sixty-day statutory notice requirement prior to filing a medical malpractice complaint. See Ark.Code Ann. § 16-114-204 (1987, Supp.1991). Based on this non-compliance, the Washington County Circuit Court granted summary judgments in favor of the appellees, Dr. James A. Arnold and Springdale Memorial Hospital. The single point on appeal is whether Rule 3 of our Rules of Civil Procedure regarding commencement of actions superseded this statutory provision. We hold that it did, and we reverse the summary judgments and remand the case for a trial on the merits.
Dr. Arnold performed a bilateral meniscectomy and reconstructive surgery on the appellant at the appellee hospital on December 2, 1988. He was released on the following day, December 3, 1988. After a series of follow-up examinations, the appellant went to another physician on January 13, 1989, who discovered a deep-pocket open-wound infection that has resulted in physical limitations. On December 3, 1990, exactly two years after the appellant's release from the appellee hospital, the appellant filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the appellees. The commencement of the action was just within the two-year limitation period imposed on malpractice suits by Ark.Code Ann. § 16-114-203(a) (Supp.1991). No sixty-day notice was given within the two years or prior to commencement of the action as required by Ark.Code Ann. § 16-114-204.
On December 11, 1990, the appellant sent to both appellees, by regular mail, a notice of intent to sue. Service of summons was obtained on April 1, 1991. The appellee hospital moved for summary judgment on April 5, 1991, followed by the same motion from Dr. Arnold on April 16, 1991. Both appellees asserted that the appellant had failed to comply with Ark.Code Ann. § 16-114-204(a), which provides:
No action for medical injury shall be commenced until at least sixty (60) days after service upon the person or persons alleged to be liable, by certified or registered mail to the last known address of the person or persons allegedly liable, of a written notice of the alleged injuries and the damages claimed.
At the hearing on the motions on June 5, 1991, the appellant argued that Ark.R.Civ.P. 3, which governs the commencement of civil actions, superseded the sixty-day notice requirement of Ark.Code Ann. § 16-114-204. Rule 3 states: "A civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the clerk of the proper court who shall note thereon the date and precise time of filing." The circuit court relied on our previous holding in Jackson v. Ozment, 283 Ark. 100, 671 S.W.2d 736 (1984) and found that Rule 3 did not supersede the sixty-day notice statute.
On appeal, the appellant urges this court to reexamine the supersession argument as we said we would do in Dawson v. Gerritsen, 290 Ark. 499, 720 S.W.2d 714 (1986).
We begin by examining the history of the sixty-day notice statute, the subsequent cases interpreting it, and the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure. Act 709 of 1979, now codified as Ark.Code Ann. § 16-114-201, et seq. (1987 and Supp.1991), was a comprehensive act enacted for the purpose of governing actions for medical injury. One facet of that enactment was section five, which provided the sixty-day notice to sue as a condition before commencing an action for medical injury. Act 709 contained an emergency clause which stated that the threat of legal action had caused increased rates for malpractice insurance and that the Act "should be given effect immediately to help control the spiralling cost of health care." The Act was signed into law on April 2, 1979.
Before the enactment of Act 709, this court adopted the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure under the authority set forth in Act 38 of 1973 and this court's own constitutional and inherent power to regulate procedure in the courts, but the civil rules did not become effective until July 1, 1979, which was after the enactment of Act 709. Re: Rules of Civil Procedure, 264 Ark. 964 (Per Curiam Dec. 18, 1978).
We adopted the Supersession Rule as part of the civil rules which provides that all laws in conflict with the civil rules and the Rules of Appellate Procedure, and the Rules for Inferior Courts are superseded.
Rule 3 of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure provides for commencement of civil actions. As first adopted, it stated that an action was commenced by filing a complaint and obtaining service within sixty days of filing. Rule 3 was amended in 1983 to eliminate the service requirement for commencement and to provide, as quoted above, that filing a complaint with the clerk of the proper court is all that is required to commence a civil action. In re Amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure, 279 Ark. 470, 651 S.W.2d 63 (Per Curiam 1983).
Also, in 1983, this court refused to hold that Act 709 was arbitrary or a violation of the Equal Protection Clause or constituted special legislation. See Gay v. Rabon, 280 Ark. 5, 652 S.W.2d 836 (1983). In holding that the Act was constitutional, we observed that there was a rational basis for the notice requirement. We did not consider the supersession issue in that case because it was not raised before the trial court.
In 1984, we considered two notice cases: Simpson v. Fuller, 281 Ark. 471, 665 S.W.2d 269 (1984) and Jackson v. Ozment, 283 Ark. 100, 671 S.W.2d 736 (1984). In both cases, we affirmed the constitutionality of the sixty-day notice statute, but in Jackson we went further and held that Rule 3 did not supersede the notice requirement which "simply adds an additional step to the proper commencement of a medical injury case provided under ARCP Rule 3." Jackson, 283 Ark. at 101-102, 671 S.W.2d at 738.
Two related decisions followed in 1986 and 1988: Dawson v. Gerritsen, 290 Ark. 499, 720 S.W.2d 714 (1986) (Dawson I ); Dawson v. Gerritsen, 295 Ark. 206, 748 S.W.2d 33 (1988) (Dawson II ). In Dawson I, we observed that the supersession issue had not been raised in that case, and we announced our intention to reexamine our holding in Jackson v. Ozment at the next opportunity. In Dawson II, supersession was apparently not an issue because it was not discussed in the decision. However, in deciding whether to award attorney fees against the losing plaintiff and in favor of the doctor and the hospital involved, we noted that the sixty-day notice requirement was "manifestly harsh" and "an obvious hardship, the equal of which may not exist elsewhere in the law." Dawson II, 295 Ark. at 211, 748 S.W.2d at 35.
In 1989 and 1990, we confirmed the point that plaintiffs had to comply literally and strictly with the notice requirement in order to commence a civil action for medical injury. Cox v. Bard, 302 Ark. 1, 786 S.W.2d 570 (1990); Ofili v. Osco Drug, Inc., 300 Ark. 431, 780 S.W.2d 11 (1989). In neither case was supersession discussed.
Now we are directly confronted with the supersession issue for the first time since Jackson v. Ozment, supra. In reviewing the history of the civil rules, it is manifest and clear that we intended for Rule 3 to govern commencement of all civil actions. These actions are commenced by filing a complaint with the clerk of the proper court. The sixty-day notice requirement adds an additional condition for commencing a civil action for medical injury and is directly at odds with Rule 3. Our holding in Jackson v. Ozment, supra, that this did not represent a conflict in civil procedure was error, and we overrule Jackson v. Ozment on that point.
The Arkansas General Assembly granted to the Arkansas Supreme Court the power to prescribe from time to time rules of pleading, practice, and procedure with respect to all proceedings in civil cases in all courts of this state. Act 38 of 1973, now codified as Ark.Code Ann. § 16-11-302 (1987). The Arkansas Constitution further endows this court with "general superintending control over inferior courts of law and equity." Ark. Const. art. 7, § 4. General superintending control includes the power to adopt rules of procedure in civil cases. There is no question that the power to adopt civil rules of procedure is well-established and grounded in constitutional and statutory authority as well as this court's inherent authority.
Both appellees contend that Ark.R.Civ.P. 81(a) carves out an exception to this court's rulemaking authority. Rule 81(a) reads:
These rules shall apply to all civil proceedings cognizable in the circuit, chancery and probate courts of this state except in those instances where a statute which creates a right, remedy or proceeding specifically provides a different procedure, in which event the procedure so specified shall apply. (Emphasis ours.)
The appellees offer no interpretive authority to support their position. Accordingly, it is left to this court to determine what is meant by a statutorily created right, remedy or proceeding and whether that exception applies to civil actions for medical malpractice.
We first observe that an action for medical malpractice did not originate as a right, remedy, or proceeding created legislatively; it had its origins at common law. Prosser in his distinguished treatise on torts refers to an article that traces the history of medical malpractice. Prosser, Law of Torts, § 32, p. 161, fn. 32 (4th Ed.1971). That article traces the first recorded case back to the fourteenth century:
The professional liability of the medical practitioner is almost as old as personal injury actions. This first recorded case in Anglo-American law goes back to the year 1374 when one J. Mort, surgeon, undertook to treat a wounded hand and allegedly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Looney v. Bolt, 96-1504
...Taliafero v. Barnett, 47 Ark. 359, 1 S.W. 702 (1886). In Baker, the court discussed its June 9, 1992 decision in Weidrick v. Arnold, 310 Ark. 138, 835 S.W.2d 843 (1992), where the court overruled Jackson v. Ozment, 283 Ark. 100, 671 S.W.2d 736 (1984), holding the sixty-day notice provision ......
-
Smith v. Sidney Moncrief Pontiac, Buick Gmc
...never the intention of this court to accede to the General Assembly on matters of civil procedure for civil actions. Weidrick v. Arnold, 310 Ark. 138, 835 S.W.2d 843 (1992). The claims at issue here are for breach of contract and fraud, both of which are rooted in the common law. The one-ye......
-
Clark v. Johnson Reg'l Med. Ctr.
...Rule 3. In finding that the statutory provision conflicted with Rule 3, this court relied on our prior decision in Weidrick v. Arnold, 310 Ark. 138, 835 S.W.2d 843 (1992), where we held that a statutory provision was superseded because it conflicted with Rule 3. This court concluded that th......
-
Morrison v. Jennings
...had failed to comply with the sixty-day notice of intent to sue. That provision was nullified by our decision in Weidrick v. Arnold, 310 Ark. 138, 835 S.W.2d 843 (1992), but in Ruffins we applied the notice provision because the law was extant at the time the case was tried. We observed tha......
-
Act 1296, HB 1874 – AN ACT TO MAKE VARIOUS CORRECTIONS TO THE ARKANSAS CODE OF 1987
...in this subchapter." SECTION 63. Section 16-114-204 having been held unconstitutional by the Arkansas Supreme Court in Weidrick v. Arnold, 310 Ark. 138 (1992), and Thomas v. Cornell, 316 Ark. 366 (1994), 16-114-204 is SECTION 64. Section 17-21-302(a) is amended to read as follows for the pu......