Neal v. Sparks Regional Medical Center
2012 Ark. 328
| Ark. | 2012Background
- Appellants Neal and Langston's estate appeal two orders: summary judgment for SRMC, denial of reconsideration, and dismissal of amended complaint.
- Langston, an 81-year-old, presented to SRMC ER in July 2003 with chest pain and related symptoms; she underwent catheterization and stenting, with Plavix delayed until July 22, 2003.
- Langston deteriorated post-procedure, developed hypotension, organ failure, and ultimately died on July 23, 2003 after a do-not-resuscitate directive.
- Appellants alleged SRMC nurses failed to administer Plavix timely and failed to notify Dr. Alemparte of a July 22 EKG change, contributing to death.
- SRMC moved for summary judgment arguing no proximate cause; circuit court granted, struck amended complaint later; this court affirmed.
- Appellants sought to add a pre-death (survivorship) claim and a loss-of-chance theory, but the circuit court struck the amended complaint and did not rule on loss-of-chance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there a genuine issue of material fact on proximate causation? | Langston would have survived absent SRMC negligence. | No expert proof supports proximate causation; Waack and doctors declined to opine on survival impact. | Summary judgment appropriate; no proximate-cause fact issue. |
| May loss-of-chance be adopted or reviewed where no ruling below on it? | Arkansas should adopt loss-of-chance doctrine and apply it to pre-death claims. | No ruling below on loss-of-chance; issue not preserved for review. | Precluded from review; no merits addressed. |
| Did the circuit court err in striking the amended complaint seeking pre-death/survivorship claims? | Rule 15 liberal amendments; discovery supported survivorship, pre-death claim should proceed. | No survivorship claim pled originally; prejudice not shown; amendment improper. | No manifest abuse of discretion; affirmed striking amended complaint. |
Key Cases Cited
- Neal v. Sparks Regional Medical Center, 375 Ark. 46 (2008) (reversal on striking amended answer; foundational to this appeal)
- Foreman Sch. Dist. No. 25 v. Steele, 347 Ark. 193 (2001) (summary judgment standard and use as efficiency tool)
- Pfeifer v. City of Little Rock, 346 Ark. 449 (2001) (summary judgment procedures and burden of proof)
- Mashburn v. Meeker Sharkey Fin. Grp., Inc., 339 Ark. 411 (1999) (summary judgment evidentiary standard)
- Elam v. First Unum Life Ins. Co., 346 Ark. 291 (2001) (evidentiary support required for CA claims)
- Campbell v. Asbury Auto., Inc., 2011 Ark. 157 (2011) (appellate review of summary-judgment determinations)
- Cragar v. Jones, 280 Ark. 549 (1983) (proximate cause sometimes resolved as a matter of law)
- Sanders v. Banks, 309 Ark. 375 (1992) (proximate causation and proof burden in negligence)
- Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. Sharp, 330 Ark. 174 (1997) (definition and proof of proximate cause)
- Miller v. Ark. Dep’t of Fin. & Admin., 2012 Ark. 165 (2012) (preservation of issues for appellate review)
- Pro-Comp Mgmt., Inc. v. R.K. Enters., LLC, 372 Ark. 190 (2008) (trial court discretion in amendments)
- Skaggs v. Johnson, 323 Ark. 320 (1996) (expert testimony and standard of care limitations)