Stephen J. Hale v. Cottrell, Inc., Auto Handling Corporation and Pacific Motor Trucking Company
2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 1476
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Stephen and Cynthia Hale sued Cottrell, Pacific Motor Trucking (PMT), Auto Handling Corp. (AHC), and others for personal injuries allegedly caused by a 2005 incident involving a Cottrell car-hauler; plaintiffs alleged permanent, progressive lower-back injuries requiring surgery.
- Mr. Hale had a prior 1996 work injury for which he pursued workers’ compensation, obtained treatment, and settled litigation in 1998; medical reports from that earlier matter (including Drs. Mirkin and McGinty and St. John’s x-rays) were in a prior litigation file.
- Plaintiffs failed to produce certain 1996 medical records and misrepresented during discovery and depositions the extent of prior treatment and the whereabouts of the prior litigation file; some reports (e.g., Dr. McGinty’s) surfaced much later, after a mistrial, and one author (Dr. McGinty) had died.
- Defendants moved to dismiss as a discovery sanction and later argued the Hales committed fraud on the court; the trial court found clear and convincing evidence of willful concealment and dismissed the case with prejudice under the court’s inherent powers, denying attorney fees.
- On appeal, the Missouri Court of Appeals reviewed for abuse of discretion, affirmed dismissal (finding bad faith concealment material and prejudicial to defendants), and denied Cottrell’s cross-appeal for attorney fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal under the court’s inherent powers was supported by clear and convincing evidence of fraud on the court | Hales: no clear/convincing proof of fraud; omissions were negligence or forgetfulness; misstatements not material | Cottrell: plaintiffs and counsel willfully concealed key 1996 records to prevent defense impeachment and hampered truth-seeking | Held: Affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion; concealment constituted fraud/bad faith warranting dismissal |
| Whether bad faith intent was shown | Hales: no specific intent to deceive; evidence controverted; explanations plausible | Defendants: intentional concealment (withholding file, late production, misstatements) shows dishonest purpose | Held: Affirmed — record supports finding of deliberate concealment and bad faith |
| Whether defendants were prejudiced by late/hidden records | Hales: defendants knew prior injury and providers; records produced before retrial; no outcome-determinative prejudice | Defendants: deprived experts of opportunity to examine original records and depose Dr. McGinty (now deceased); hampered defense on causation | Held: Affirmed — prejudice established (lost opportunity to use records/expert confrontation) |
| Whether attorney fees should have been awarded to prevailing defendant | Cottrell: incurred substantial fees due to plaintiffs’ bad faith; seeks fee award | Hales: (implicit) fees not warranted; majority rule that each side bears own fees absent authority | Held: Denied — trial court did not abuse discretion in declining to award fees; Missouri follows American Rule absent clear basis for fees |
Key Cases Cited
- Rea v. Moore, 74 S.W.3d 795 (Mo. App. 2002) (recognizing court’s inherent power to dismiss for fraud on the court to protect judicial integrity)
- A.J.H. ex rel. M.J.H. v. M.A.H.S., 364 S.W.3d 680 (Mo. App. 2012) (inherent powers may be used for bad-faith conduct but should be exercised sparingly)
- State ex rel. McNutt v. Keet, 432 S.W.2d 597 (Mo. 1968) (discoverability of medical records is vital to truth-seeking)
- In re Carey, 89 S.W.3d 477 (Mo. 2002) (candor to the tribunal is indispensable; misrepresentation undermines the legal system)
- McPherson v. U.S. Physicians Mut. Risk Retention Grp., 99 S.W.3d 462 (Mo. App. 2003) (awarding fees as sanction requires bad faith and is reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Gallagher v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 238 S.W.3d 157 (Mo. App. 2007) (no new trial where court finds no outcome-determinative prejudice from late production)
- Rech v. AAA Plumbing Co., 798 S.W.2d 194 (Mo. App. 1990) (plaintiff must prove causal connection when recovering for aggravation of preexisting condition)
- White v. City of Ladue, 422 S.W.3d 439 (Mo. App. 2013) (appellate review asks whether trial court could reasonably conclude as it did on sanctions)