St. Vincent Infirmary Medical Center v. Shelton
425 S.W.3d 761
Ark.2013Background
- Appellants St. Vincent and Catholic Health Initiatives sued Shelton plaintiffs for negligence, medical malpractice, and rights violations related to a bedsores claim arising from 2008 care at St. Vincent and later Golden Living Center.
- Golden Living settled with plaintiffs and was dismissed with prejudice; appellants then filed a cross-claim and a third-party complaint against Golden Living seeking fault apportionment.
- Appellees moved to strike the cross-claim and third-party complaint, arguing they were improper against a nonparty and that CJRA/UCATA rights did not permit such an action after dismissal.
- The circuit court struck the cross-claim and third-party complaint, finding no viable UCATA claim, no indispensable/necessary party, and no CJRA-based procedure to allocate fault to a nonparty.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding CJRA abolished joint and several liability and thus foreclosed a UCATA contribution claim against Golden Living, though evidence of Golden Living’s fault could still be presented to the jury.
- Concurrences and dissents discuss whether Golden Living could be a joint tortfeasor for purposes of allocation and whether Rule 81(c) could create a new procedure for fault apportionment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Right of contribution post-CJRA | St. Vincent and Golden Living were joint tortfeasors under UCATA. | CJRA abolished joint and several liability; no UCATA contribution against a nonparty. | No UCATA contribution against Golden Living under CJRA. |
| Effect of CJRA on nonparty fault allocation | CJRA did not eliminate all fault allocation rights; should allocate to nonparties. | CJRA prohibits fault allocation to nonparties; nonparty fault admissible only for separate liability findings. | CJRA precludes fault allocation to nonparties in a third-party/Rule 14 context. |
| Indispensable/necessary party | Golden Living should be indispensable for fault allocation. | Golden Living not indispensable under Rule 19; CJRA/UCATA framework suffices. | Golden Living not a necessary/indispensable party for fault allocation. |
| Rule 81(c) процедура for fault allocation | Court could create its own procedure to implement fault allocation. | Rule 81(c) cannot be used to bypass CJRA/constitutional constraints; no procedure created. | Court did not create new fault-allocation procedure; upheld dismissal. |
| Preservation of potential fault evidence | Evidence of Golden Living’s responsibility can be presented to jurors. | Dismissal prevents a fault allocation verdict against a nonparty. | Fault evidence against Golden Living remains admissible; dismissal does not bar its potential responsibility. |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. Rockwell Automation, Inc., 2009 Ark. 241 (Ark. 2009) (CJRA/separation of powers; allocation framework)
- Metheny v. ProAssurance Indemnity Co., Inc., 2012 Ark. 461 (Ark. 2012) (nonmodel jury instructions; nonparty fault allocation)
- ProAssurance Indemnity Co., Inc. v. Metheny, 425 S.W.3d 689 (Ark. 2012) (fault apportionment and CJRA implications)
- Applegate v. Riggall, 229 Ark. 773 (Ark. 1958) (joint tortfeasors and third-party contribution context)
- Heinemann v. Hallum, 365 Ark. 600 (Ark. 2006) (UCATA contribution framework)
- Temple v. Synthes Corp., 498 U.S. 5 (U.S. 1990) (indispensable party and joint tortfeasor principles)
- Bailey v. Bayer CropScience L.P., 563 F.3d 302 (8th Cir. 2009) (policy on multiple tortfeasors and allocation)
- Ark. Kraft Corp. v. Johnson, 257 Ark. 629 (Ark. 1975) (statutory interpretation of fault allocation precedents)