Johnson v. Bronson
830 N.W.2d 595
| N.D. | 2013Background
- Johnson, a former California attorney, was involuntarily hospitalized in 2007 after alleging ‘electronic hazards’ and reporting concerns to law enforcement and Prairie staff.
- Dr. Natalya Bronson evaluated Johnson as mentally ill; Prairie held Johnson for up to 14 days after a Preliminary Hearing determined probable cause.
- Dr. Bronson’s report cited a serious risk of harm and potential deterioration in Johnson’s mental health; Johnson disputed the diagnosis.
- Johnson asserted multiple claims against Medical Defendants and Mottinger, including medical and legal malpractice, negligent/false imprisonment, and emotional distress.
- Johnson obtained two rounds of expert affidavits (Dr. Abuzzahab and Dr. Benson) attempting to support negligence; these opinions were deemed insufficient for causation and standard-of-care.
- District court granted summary judgment for Bronson and Mottinger, denied Johnson’s motions to amend and for summary judgment; court also awarded costs and denied Rule 60(b) relief; Johnson pursued appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bronson’s medical negligence claim survives summary judgment. | Johnson contends a valid standard-of-care and causation exist. | Bronson’s affidavit and evidence fail to prove duty/breach/cause. | No; insufficient expert evidence on standard of care and causation. |
| Whether Mottinger’s legal malpractice claim survives summary judgment. | Runge’s testimony shows causation; Mottinger’s conduct affected outcome. | No causal link shown; case-within-a-case not met. | No; plaintiff failed to prove causation. |
| Whether the district court properly awarded costs and disbursements to defendants. | Costs were not all reasonable or necessary. | Costs and disbursements were proper and reasonable. | Yes; court did not abuse discretion. |
| Whether Rule 60(b) relief was properly denied. | New evidence and arguments justify relief. | No exceptional circumstances; late evidence non-exigent. | Yes; denial affirmed. |
| Whether the remaining issues on appeal warrant relief or reversal. | There are unresolved substantive issues. | Courts addressed most issues; others unnecessary. | Affirmed overall; other issues not needed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Scheer v. Altru Health Sys., 2007 ND 104 (ND 2007) (requires expert proof of standard of care and causation in malpractice)
- Barbie v. Minko Constr., Inc., 2009 ND 99 (ND 2009) (summary judgment burden; absence of material disputes)
- Van Klootwyk v. Baptist Home, Inc., 2003 ND 112 (ND 2003) (expert opinion not always required; screen claims)
- Golden v. SM Energy Co., 2013 ND 17 (ND 2013) (standard for reviewing summary judgment de novo)
- Wastvedt v. Vaaler, 430 N.W.2d 561 (ND 1988) (treatment of expert necessity in negligence)
- Haugenoe v. Bambrick, 2003 ND 92 (ND 2003) (obvious-occurrence exception to expert necessity)
- Dan Nelson Constr., Inc. v. Nodland & Dickson, 2000 ND 61 (ND 2000) (case-within-a-case doctrine for legal malpractice)
- Swanson v. Sheppard, 445 N.W.2d 654 (ND 1989) (elements of professional negligence)
- Follman v. Upper Valley Special Educ. Unit, 2000 ND 72 (ND 2000) (Rule 60(b) relief and exceptional circumstances)
- Watts v. Magic 2 x 52 Mgmt., Inc., 2012 ND 99 (ND 2012) (Rule 60(b) relief not a second chance for new arguments)
- Holkesvig v. Welte, 2011 ND 161 (ND 2011) (abuse of discretion standard for costs/disbursements)
- Wheeler v. Southport Seven Planned Unit Dev., 2012 ND 201 (ND 2012) (discretionary nature of costs)