Broussard v. St. Edward Mercy Health System, Inc.
2012 Ark. 14
| Ark. | 2012Background
- Broussard appeals summary judgment in favor of St. Edward Mercy Medical Center and two physicians, challenging the constitutionality of Ark. Code Ann. § 16-114-206(a).
- The statute requires expert testimony in medical malpractice by a provider of the same specialty as the defendant when the issue is not within common knowledge.
- Broussard underwent parathyroidectomy on April 25, 2006, with subsequent burn-related injuries and complications treated by multiple physicians including Dr. Coleman Jr. and a dermatologist.
- Broussard alleged negligence in post-operative treatment rather than operating-room events, and discovery suggested the case centered on treatment of the burn.
- The circuit court held § 16-114-206(a) constitutional, treating the same-specialty requirement as substantive law, and Siemens Rule 702 procedures as applicable.
- The Arkansas Supreme Court reversed, severed the offending language, held the provision procedural and unconstitutional, and remanded to determine whether Broussard may amend her pleadings to conform to her theory.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 16-114-206(a) violates separation of powers and Amendment 80 | Broussard argues the same-specialty requirement is procedural, not substantive. | Seffense/Colman contend it defines burden of proof and is substantive. | Unconstitutional; procedural rule violated separation of powers. |
| Whether the offending language is severable from § 16-114-206(a) | Severability preserves rest of the act. | The entire provision controls expert testimony standards. | Offending language severable; remainder of § 16-114-206(a) remains intact. |
| Whether remand is required to address pleading scope | Broussard should be allowed to amend to conform to the theory presented. | No amendment authority discussed; summary judgment stands. | Remand for determination of whether Broussard may amend pleadings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. Rockwell Automation, Inc., 2009 Ark. 241 (Ark. 2009) (statutory presumption of constitutionality; burden on party challenging statute)
- DaimlerChrysler Servs. N. Am., LLC v. Weiss, 360 Ark. 188 (Ark. 2004) (de novo review of questions of law)
- Summerville v. Thrower, 369 Ark. 231 (Ark. 2007) (distinguishes substantive vs. procedural law; ordinary meaning governs statutory interpretation)
- City of Fayetteville v. Edmarh, 304 Ark. 179 (Ark. 1990) (trial court control over admissibility and evidentiary rulings; inherent authority of courts)
- Flentje v. First Nat. Bank of Wynne, 340 Ark. 563 (Ark. 2000) (summary-judgment standards and purposes)
- Cathey v. Williams, 290 Ark. 189 (Ark. 1986) (statutory characterization of § 16-114 as substantive law (contextual pre-2003))