Bedell v. Williams
2012 Ark. 75
| Ark. | 2012Background
- Valentine’s estate sued Bedell, LRHC, and Heartland for ordinary negligence, medical malpractice, Residents’ Rights Act violation, and felony neglect, later dismissed against some entities.
- Bedell was LRHC’s president; circuit court directed verdict on felony neglect against Bedell, and Williams pursued liability against others.
- Jury verdicts: LRHC $5.1 million total (compensatory: $1.8m ordinary negligence, $1.9m medical negligence, $1.4m Residents’ Rights Act); no punitive against LRHC; Heartland $350k compensatory on ordinary negligence; Bedell $5 million total ($3m compensatory, $2m punitive); others dismissed.
- Prior to trial, §16-114-207(3) argument arose; LRHC sought to prohibit nurse expert opinions against LRHC, court initially ruled statute inapplicable or unconstitutional; Williams dismissed some parties.
- Appellants argued evidentiary errors, including excluding post-discharge evidence, admission of dignity testimony, spoliation instruction, and jury instruction flaws; court reversed as to Bedell and remanded for new trial as to LRHC and Heartland.
- Court’s final disposition: Bedell reversed and dismissed; remand for new trial against LRHC and Heartland; post-discharge evidence exclusion deemed error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty by Bedell | Bedell owed a duty via federal regulation/policy | No personal duty; regulation/policy do not create tort duty | Bedell owed no personal duty; directed verdict affirmed as to Bedell |
| Post-discharge evidence | Post-discharge medical records were relevant to causation | Evidence irrelevant after Quapaw dismissal; prejudicial to LRHC/Heartland | Abuse of discretion in excluding post-discharge evidence; remand for new trial |
| Dignity expert testimony | Definition of dignity should be expert-defined under statute | Dignity is common understanding; expert testimony unnecessary | Admissibility of expert testimony on dignity reversed; error in admitting it |
| § 16-114-207(3) applicability | Nurses’ experts could testify against employer under the statute | Statute applicable; not unconstitutional; protects privilege | Statute applies to LRHC nurses; no constitutional violation; privilege upheld for matters in §16-114-206 |
| Residents’ Rights Act causation | Causation element not required in instruction | Causation implied; instruction should reflect damages element | Instruction error for omitting causation; require causal element in damages under Act |
Key Cases Cited
- Satterwhite v. Reilly, 817 So.2d 407 (La.Ct.App.2002) (regulatory duty not implied to create tort liability for medical director)
- Missouri Pac. R.R. Co. v. Biddle, 293 S.W.2d 473 (Ark. 1987) (standard for admissibility of expert testimony)
- St. Louis Sw. Ry. Co. v. Jackson, 416 S.W.2d 273 (Ark. 1967) (admission of expert testimony on issues that jurors can determine)
- Young v. The Gastrointestinal Ctr., Inc., 205 S.W.3d 741 (Ark. 2005) (internal policy alone not create duty; ordinary meaning governs)
- Broussard v. St. Edward Mercy Health Sys., Inc., 386 S.W.3d 385 (Ark. 2012) (statutory language given ordinary meaning in construction)
- Rylwell, L.L.C. v. Arkansas Dev. Fin. Auth., 269 S.W.3d 797 (Ark. 2007) (interpretation to give meaning to every word in statute)
- Bayird v. Floyd, 344 S.W.3d 80 (Ark. 2009) (personal liability; personal involvement in events)
- Grummet v. Cummings, 986 S.W.2d 91 (Ark. 1999) (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)