Ford v. Milojkovic
2017 Ark. App. 187
Ark. Ct. App.2017Background
- Herman P. Ford presented to UAMS ER in Sept. 2011 with chronic cough; imaging revealed a chest tumor and further oncologic workup ensued.
- Ford received care and chemotherapy over the next year; he was hospitalized in Oct. 2012 for poor nutrition, discharged, returned with respiratory/cardiac problems, and died Nov. 1, 2012.
- In Oct. 2014, Deran Ford (administrator and next friend for a minor) sued multiple physicians, UAMS, the University of Arkansas (UA), and John Does alleging medical negligence/malpractice.
- Between Mar. 2015 and May 2016, most defendants were dismissed or granted summary judgment; Ford appealed the summary judgments entered for four doctors (Kalkwarf, Steliga, Milojkovic, Pennisi).
- The Court of Appeals found the record shows UA was served but not finally disposed of, and no Rule 54(b) certificate was entered; thus there is no final, appealable order.
- The court also noted deficiencies in the appellant’s addendum (missing dispositive orders) that prevented confirmation of appellate jurisdiction, and dismissed the appeal without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate court has jurisdiction over appeal from partial dismissals | Ford argued summary judgments to the four doctors were appealable | Defendants implicitly argued appeals were premature absent final disposition of all parties | Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because UA remained a served, undismissed defendant and no Rule 54(b) certificate existed |
| Whether Rule 54(b) certification is required to appeal when some parties remain | Ford effectively treated partial adjudication as appealable | Defendants relied on the absence of Rule 54(b) certification to challenge appealability | Court held Rule 54(b) certification is required to make fewer-than-all-party decisions final for appeal |
| Whether the addendum satisfied appellate rules for demonstrating jurisdiction | Ford included some summary-judgment orders but omitted several dispositive orders | Appellees noted missing orders prevented confirmation that all parties were disposed | Court found the addendum deficient and could not confirm jurisdiction without the omitted orders |
| Whether appellees not listed in the appeal can obtain dismissal from the appellate court | Ford abandoned appeal as to certain dismissed defendants | Those dismissed defendants moved to dismiss the appeal as to them in this court | Court denied that motion without prejudice because they are not parties to the appeal here |
Key Cases Cited
- Ver Weire v. CNA Fin. Corp., 213 S.W.3d 646 (Ark. Ct. App. 2005) (an order disposing of fewer than all claims or parties is not final absent Rule 54(b) certification)