Ryan v. San Francisco Peaks Trucking Co.
228 Ariz. 42
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- In April 2002, Patrick Ryan and Tana Ryan were injured in a collision with Morgan driving a semi-trailer owned by SFP; Patrick died from his injuries.
- Tana sued SFP in 2004 for negligence and wrongful death; a separate suit against medical providers followed for medical malpractice and related claims.
- Two medical facilities, St. Joseph's Hospital and Select Specialty Hospital, were accused of negligent post-accident care, including feeding-tube management and infection control.
- Tana served disclosure statements in 2006 identifying experts Bruce Ragsdale, M.D., and Suzanne Frederick, R.N., among others, with preliminary affidavits attached.
- In 2007, Tana disclosed additional experts and served their preliminary affidavits; in 2007-2008, settlements with the medical defendants occurred, with Tana withdrawing as trial witness.
- SFP later designated the dismissed defendants as nonparties at fault and sought to rely on Tana’s pleadings, disclosures, and expert opinions to support nonparty-at-fault allegations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of disclosure statements as admissions | Ryan argues disclosures are not admissible as party admissions. | SFP contends disclosures are admissible under Rule 801(d)(2)(D) as admissions by a party's attorney. | Disclosures admissible as party-admissions under Rule 801(d)(2)(D). |
| Use of plaintiff's expert affidavits to prove nonparty fault | Affidavits cannot establish fault without in-person testimony. | Affidavits may serve as proof if admissible and show negligence and causation. | Preliminary expert affidavits may establish prima facie fault if admissible and meet medical-malpractice proof. |
| Definition of 'testimony' and requirement for expert proof | Live expert testimony is required to prove standard of care and causation. | Written affidavits can count as testimony, satisfying some proof requirements. | Expert affidavits can constitute testimony for prima facie proof of nonparty fault. |
| Effect of cross-examining affidavits and potential prejudice | Cross-examining affidavits violates rules and harms due process. | Cross-examination is permissible and not reversible error when affidavits admitted. | Any cross-examination was harmless error given affidavits were admitted and available to jury. |
| Summary judgment based on lack of in-person expert | Without in-person expert, SFP cannot establish nonparty fault. | Affidavits and disclosures suffice to raise triable issue; in-person testimony not strictly required. | Trial court did not err; SFP may rely on the affidavits to establish nonparty fault. |
Key Cases Cited
- Henry ex rel. Estate of Wilson v. HealthPartners of S. Ariz., 203 Ariz. 393 (App. 2002) (disclosures may be admissible as evidentiary admissions)
- Reed v. Hinderland, 135 Ariz. 213 (1983) (evidentiary admissions may be explained or denied by party)
- Seisinger v. Siebel, 220 Ariz. 85 (2009) (expert testimony required to prove medical negligence; standard of care and causation)
- A Tumbling-T Ranches v. Flood Control Dist. of Maricopa Cnty., 222 Ariz. 515 (App. 2009) (nonparty fault evidence must be adequate to support jury finding)
- Gorney v. Meaney, 214 Ariz. 226 (App. 2007) (preliminary expert affidavits required for medical-malpractice claims)
- State Farm Ins. Cos. v. Premier Manuf. Sys., Inc., 213 Ariz. 419 (App. 2006) (comparative fault; each defendant liable for proportion of fault)
- Salica v. Tucson Heart Hosp.-Carondelet, L.L.C., 224 Ariz. 414 (App. 2010) (proximate cause and expert testimony considerations in medical claims)