Brookins Ex Rel. Gotcher v. Mote
292 P.3d 347
Mont.2012Background
- Dr. Mote, trial delivery physician with past criminal charges, treated Ann’s pregnancy and Allen’s birth at Mineral Community Hospital; hospital later published statements that Mote was not an employee; Ann sued Mote and the Hospital for malpractice, vicarious liability, CPA, and negligent credentialing; discovery disputes arose over MRI evidence and expert disclosures; district court extended discovery and found excusable neglect, then granted summary judgment to Hospital on all claims; on appeal, Brookins argues errors in discovery reopening and in several summary judgments.
- Dr. Mote previously resigned after Oregon charges and returned to Superior; Hospital credentialing of Mote as independent physician occurred despite prior concerns; the case centers on whether the Hospital’s relationships and credentialing created agency, joint venture, or liability under CPA or negligent credentialing.
- Key discovery issues included missing 1993 MRI and late expert disclosures; St. Patrick Hospital destroyed the 1993 MRI; court extended deadlines to allow complete disclosures and deposition, finding excusable neglect.
- Ann’s claims against Hospital included agency and joint venture theories, CPA liability, and negligent credentialing; the trial court granted summary judgment to Hospital on all issues.
- The Montana Supreme Court ultimately affirmed the district court’s rulings, including reopening discovery and granting summary judgment on agency, joint venture, CPA, and negligent credentialing claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether reopening discovery was proper | Brookins argues no good cause | Hospital argues good cause/ excusable neglect | No abuse of discretion; good cause found |
| Whether there was an actual agency? | Brookins contends there was an agency through control | Hospital contends no right of control | No genuine agency; summary judgment proper |
| Whether ostensible agency exists | Brookins argues Hospital actions misled as to employment | Hospital showed it did not employ Mote | No ostensible agency; summary judgment proper |
| Whether CPA claim is actionable against a hospital | Brookins argues CPA applies to hospital conduct | Hospital argues professional/ not entrepreneurial aspects | CPA claim not actionable; professional credentialing falls outside CPA scope |
| Whether negligent credentialing is a recognizable claim | Brookins seeks negligent credentialing as a claim | Hospital argues lack of breach/ expert support | Recognized negligent credentialing; expert evidence required to show breach; summary judgment upheld for Hospital on breach elements |
Key Cases Cited
- Kober v. Stewart, 417 P.2d 476 (Mont. 1966) (factors for actual agency include control, payment, equipment, and right to fire)
- Butler v. Domin, 15 P.3d 1189 (Mont. 2000) (right to control factors; on-call radiologist vs hospital control)
- Milliron v. Francke, 793 P.2d 824 (Wash. 1990) (ostensible agency requires patient belief of hospital employment)
- Butler v. Domin, 15 P.3d 1189 (Mont. 2000) (reiterates ostensible agency standards)
- Short v. Demopolis, 691 P.2d 163 (Wash. 1984) (entrepreneurial aspects of professional practice may trigger CPA liability)
- Jaramillo v. Morris, 750 P.2d 1304 (Wash. App. 1988) (extension of entrepreneurial aspect test to hospitals)
- Goldfarb v. Va. St. Bar, 421 U.S. 773 (U.S. 1975) (professions may be subject to CPA when business aspects intrude)
- Archuleta v. St. Mark’s Hosp., 238 P.3d 1044 (Utah 2010) (negligent credentialing recognized as hospital duty in credentialing)