Worden v. Kirchner

2013 Ark. 509 (2013) · Supreme Court of Arkansas · December 12, 2013 · No. CV-13-261

Summary

The Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed the dismissal of a medical-malpractice and wrongful-death action brought by heirs of the decedent. It held that the complaint failed to plead sufficient factual allegations against the physician under Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and that claims against other defendants were barred by the statute of limitations. The court declined to consider the appellants’ relation-back argument because it was not raised below and vacated the court of appeals’ opinion.

Court
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Writing for the Court
Courtney Hudson Goodson
Jurisdiction
Arkansas
Decision date
December 12, 2013
Docket number
CV-13-261
Procedural posture
Heirs appealed the Pulaski County Circuit Court's dismissal with prejudice of their medical-malpractice and wrongful-death complaint. The Supreme Court of Arkansas granted review of the court of appeals' affirmance and treated the appeal as originally filed in the supreme court.
Standard of review
A motion-to-dismiss ruling under Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is reviewed for abuse of discretion. The facts alleged in the complaint are treated as true and viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff; reasonable inferences are resolved in favor of the complaint and pleadings are liberally construed. Arguments raised for the first time on appeal are not considered.
Precedential value
Published Arkansas Supreme Court opinion; precedential.
Parties
Elizabeth Worden, Douglas Spires, as heirs at law for Alfred Spires, deceased v. Dr. Jeffrey Kirchner, M.D., individually, Arkansas Health Group, d/b/a North Little Rock Emergency Doctors Group, Baptist Health, d/b/a Baptist Health Medical Center - North Little Rock, Baptist MedCare, Inc., d/b/a Practice Plus
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

motions to dismissmedical malpracticestatute of limitationsappellate procedurecivil procedure

Practice areas

medical malpracticewrongful deathcivil procedureappellate procedurestatute of limitations

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the circuit court erred by ruling on appellees' motions to dismiss before discovery was complete.
  2. Whether the complaint stated sufficient facts to survive Dr. Kirchner's motion to dismiss under Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
  3. Whether the claims against Arkansas Health, Baptist Health, and Baptist MedCare were barred by the two-year statute of limitations and whether the savings statute applied.
  4. Whether appellants could rely on relation back under Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c) when that argument was not raised in the circuit court.
  5. Whether appellants, as heirs, could assert claims on behalf of the decedent.

Holdings

  1. The circuit court did not err by ruling on the motions before completion of discovery because appellants did not alert the court to pertinent ongoing discovery or request a delay, failed to preserve the issue, and did not show that additional discovery would have changed the outcome.
  2. The complaint failed to state sufficient facts to support a claim against Dr. Kirchner because it alleged only conclusory assertions concerning deviation from the standard of care and proximate causation.
  3. The claims were time-barred because the appellees were not named as defendants until October 1, 2010, more than two years after the alleged wrongful acts on June 27, 2008, and the savings statute therefore did not apply.
  4. The court did not decide whether the amended complaint related back because appellants failed to raise the issue in the circuit court, and the record did not establish compliance with Rule 15(c)(2).
  5. The court declined to address the issue because it was moot after affirmance of the dismissal on other grounds.

Key quotations

Bereft of any factual support, this statement is conclusory, as it does not state in specific terms how Kirchner “deviated from the acceptable standard of care resulting in the misdiagnosis” of the decedent. (6)
Because appellees were not named as party defendants until after the statute of limitations had expired, the savings statute does not apply, and the suit against them is time-barred. (8)
Affirmed; court of appeals’ opinion vacated. (9)

Factual background

Alfred Spires, a Florida resident, became ill while visiting relatives in Arkansas on June 27, 2008, and was transported to Baptist Health Medical Center's emergency room. He died later that day after collapsing in a hallway between emergency-room departments. His heirs alleged that emergency-room personnel failed to perform a cardiovascular assessment despite his history of myocardial infarction, misdiagnosed his condition as abdominal pain, and delayed treatment for a heart attack. They filed the present action on November 21, 2011, after an earlier action and amended complaint naming some appellees had been filed outside the applicable limitations period.

Procedural history

The circuit court granted appellees' motions to dismiss on February 3, 2012, and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. Appellants' motion to reconsider was deemed denied by operation of law, and they timely appealed. The court of appeals affirmed; the Supreme Court of Arkansas granted review, affirmed the circuit court, and vacated the court of appeals' opinion.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…