Johnson v. Mid Dakota Clinic, P.C.
2015 ND 135
| N.D. | 2015Background
- Decedent Herman B. Johnson experienced confusion and leg swelling on Dec. 18, 2012; his daughter Joan (also his attorney-in-fact) called clinics for an appointment.
- Mid Dakota Clinic scheduled him with Dr. Grenz that afternoon; Johnson arrived ~7 minutes late and was told Dr. Grenz would not see him because of a >5-minute lateness policy; staff offered rescheduling or ER/Today Clinic options.
- After leaving Mid Dakota and re-entering the mall vestibule to seek the VA Clinic, Herman fell, struck his head, and sustained a forehead laceration; Mid Dakota nurse assisted until ambulance transport; he was later hospitalized, suffered respiratory arrests, and died on Dec. 27, 2012.
- Joan (as personal representative) and Marguerite Johnson sued Mid Dakota for breach of contract, negligence, and professional negligence, alleging the clinic’s refusal to treat and negligent maintenance led to the fall and death.
- Mid Dakota moved for summary judgment arguing no duty arose from mere appointment scheduling, no physician–patient relationship existed, no contract was formed, and causation was lacking.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Mid Dakota; the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the Johnsons failed to present admissible evidence creating genuine disputes on duty, breach, and proximate causation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether scheduling created physician–patient relationship | Johnson: scheduling (and clinic’s conduct) created duty/relationship | Mid Dakota: mere scheduling does not create a duty or physician–patient relationship | No duty/relationship from scheduling; summary judgment for clinic |
| Whether clinic’s refusal to treat breached standard of care (professional negligence) | Johnson: refusing to see a patient 7 minutes late violated medical standard; expert opined clinic would have assessed and hospitalized him | Mid Dakota: no expert proof that policy violation caused harm; scheduling refusal not malpractice absent proof of standard breach causing injury | Plaintiff failed to establish necessary expert-supported causation; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether clinic’s actions proximately caused fall and death (causation) | Johnson: but-for refusal, decedent would have been treated and not fallen; fall was foreseeable | Mid Dakota: fall was not a natural and probable consequence; intervening acts (daughter’s inattention) and speculative links break proximate causation | Court: no competent evidence that refusal proximately caused fall/death; speculative chain insufficient |
| Whether appointment scheduling constituted a contract | Johnson: appointment/clinic representations formed a contract | Mid Dakota: scheduling did not create a binding contract to provide care | Court: no contract established by mere scheduling; summary judgment proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Scheer v. Altru Health Sys., 734 N.W.2d 778 (2007 ND 104) (elements for professional negligence: standard, breach, causation via expert proof)
- Johnson v. Bronson, 830 N.W.2d 595 (2013 ND 78) (expert testimony unnecessary only when breach is an "obvious occurrence")
- Beckler v. Bismarck Pub. Sch. Dist., 711 N.W.2d 172 (2006 ND 58) (summary judgment standards; negligence elements require duty, breach, proximate cause)
- Aasmundstad v. State of North Dakota, 763 N.W.2d 748 (2008 ND 206) (proximate cause requires reliable evidence of causal connection)
- Moum v. Maercklein, 201 N.W.2d 399 (N.D. 1972) (proximate cause excludes liability based on remote or speculative consequences)
- Klimple v. Bahl, 727 N.W.2d 256 (2007 ND 13) (summary judgment appropriate when reasonable factfinder can reach only one conclusion)