St. George v. Plimpton, 241 Ariz. 163

Background

Kortney and John St. George sued obstetrician Dr. C. Steven Plimpton and certified nurse‑midwife (CNM) Ellen Franklin for injuries allegedly caused when Franklin applied pubic pressure during delivery; suit filed April 2012.
Plaintiffs certified expert testimony was necessary and disclosed Dr. Harry Watters, an OB/GYN, as their standard‑of‑care expert for both defendants and submitted a preliminary affidavit describing deviations by Franklin and asserting inadequate physician supervision.
At deposition, Watters opined Franklin fell below the CNM standard, but testified he could not identify any specific act by Dr. Plimpton that breached the physician standard; he later sent a “correction” letter alleging lack of protocols by Plimpton.
Defendants moved for summary judgment: Plimpton argued plaintiffs produced no expert proof of his breach; Franklin argued Watters was unqualified under A.R.S. § 12‑2604 to testify against a CNM because he is not a nurse/CNM.
The superior court granted summary judgment for both defendants; plaintiffs’ late oral request for a Rule 56(f) continuance to obtain a CNM expert was denied. Plaintiffs appealed; the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiffs provided expert evidence that Dr. Plimpton breached the standard of care	Watters’s affidavit and testimony about inadequate supervision show Plimpton negligently supervised Franklin	No expert identified any specific act/omission by Plimpton that breached the applicable physician standard	Held for Plimpton: plaintiffs failed to present expert proof of breach by Plimpton; summary judgment affirmed
Whether statutory/regulatory violations established negligence per se against Franklin	Midwifery statutes/regulations apply to Franklin and establish negligence per se, obviating need for expert proof	Franklin is a certified nurse‑midwife regulated by the Board of Nursing and exempt from ADHS midwifery licensing/regulations; expert proof still required	Held for Franklin: midwifery statutes/regulations do not govern CNMs here; negligence per se not available; expert testimony required
Whether Dr. Watters was qualified to testify against Franklin under A.R.S. § 12‑2604	Watters’s obstetrics experience and supervision of midwives qualified him to opine on CNM standard of care	§ 12‑2604 requires an expert be in the same health profession/specialty (nursing/CNM) or spend majority time instructing nurses; Watters is not a nurse/CNM	Held: Watters not qualified under § 12‑2604 to testify against a CNM; court did not abuse discretion in excluding him
Whether the court abused its discretion by denying Rule 56(f) relief to obtain a CNM expert	Plaintiffs sought more time at oral argument to obtain a CNM expert and argued statutory ambiguity justified delay	Plaintiffs failed to file the required sworn Rule 56(f) statement, did not identify a specific expert or timeline, and had time after controlling cases were published to secure a qualified expert	Held: No abuse of discretion; denial of continuance proper

Key Cases Cited

Wells Fargo Bank v. Arizona Laborers, Teamsters and Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund, 201 Ariz. 474 (standard for reviewing summary judgment)
Baker v. University Physicians Healthcare, 231 Ariz. 379 (expert‑qualification rules under A.R.S. § 12‑2604 and definition of specialty)
Cornerstone Hosp. of Southeast Arizona, L.L.C. v. Marner, 231 Ariz. 67 (nursing as the relevant health profession under § 12‑2604 for cases against registered nurses)
Barrett v. Samaritan Health Servs. Inc., 153 Ariz. 138 (expert testimony generally required to prove medical malpractice)
Rasor v. Northwest Hosp., LLC, 239 Ariz. 546 (nursing qualifies as a health profession under § 12‑2604)
Tellez v. Saban, 188 Ariz. 165 (when legislative enactment can establish standard of care / negligence per se)
Brannigan v. Raybuck, 136 Ariz. 513 (negligence per se principles)
Grand v. Nacchio, 214 Ariz. 9 (requirements for Rule 56(f) continuance)