Hardesty v. Baptist Health
2013 Ark. App. 731
Ark. Ct. App.2013Background
- Hardesty and his wife sued Baptist Health, Dr. Remmel, and O’Connell for medical negligence related to a urinary tract infection, a wandering patient, a supposed arm fracture, and consequent injuries.
- Hardesty was elderly with COPD; he was admitted after disorientation, initially diagnosed with dementia, placed in geriatrics under Dr. Remmel.
- During care, he wandered from a safety belt, reportedly causing a left elbow fracture; later his condition was linked to a urinary tract infection.
- Baptist, Remmel, and O’Connell served with requests for admission, which appellants failed to respond to or properly file responses to.
- Baptist, Remmel, and O’Connell moved for summary judgment based on deemed admissions, arguing no genuine issue of material fact.
- Circuit court granted summary judgment, finding admissions deemed admitted and lack of expert proof required under Arkansas medical-injury standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether admissions were properly deemed admitted | Hardesty argued the court abused its discretion. | Baptist/Remmel/O’Connell asserted proper deeming under Rule 36. | Deemed admissions affirmed; no abuse shown. |
| Whether the denial of withdrawal/amendment of admissions was error | Hardesty sought to withdraw/amend admissions. | Court did not abuse discretion given failure to timely respond. | No abuse; withdrawal/amendment denied. |
| Whether summary judgment was proper based on admissions and lack of expert proof | Plaintiffs contend genuine issues exist; expert proof could be presented. | Admitted lack of expert evidence forecloses negligence claim per 16-114-206. | Summary judgment affirmed; no expert proof. |
| Whether O’Connell’s admissions were properly deemed given identical requests | Responses were served; file-filing deficiency should not trigger deeming. | Rule 5 filing requirement and default logic apply; harmless error. | Deemed admitted; error harmless. |
Key Cases Cited
- Widmer v. Fort Smith Vehicle Co., 244 Ark. 626 (Ark. 1968) (distinguishes valid use of requests for admission when no response)
- Webb v. Lambert, 295 Ark. 438 (Ark. 1988) (failure to timely file affects consequences; default judgment concerns)
- Deering v. Supermarket Investors, Inc., 2013 Ark. App. 56 (Ark. App. 2013) (trial court broad discovery discretion; abuse must be prejudicial)
- Midkiff v. Crain Ford Jacksonville, LLC, 2013 Ark. App. 373 (Ark. App. 2013) (summary-judgment standard and burden-shifting framework)
- Seth v. St. Edward Mercy Med. Ctr., 375 Ark. 413 (Ark. 2009) (requires convincing argument and authority for appellate positions)
- Davis v. Davis, 2013 Ark. App. 180 (Ark. App. 2013) (prejudice and proper consideration in evidentiary rulings)