Thompson v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 2015 Ark. App. 424

Timothy Thompson, a Tyson Foods employee, exhibited confusion after a 2:00 a.m. shift in Sept. 2008; a coworker took him to the employer-required nursing station.
The licensed practical nurse administered a drug test (negative) but did not take vital signs or summon emergency medical services; Timothy was driven home and later brought to hospital by his wife.
At ~6:00 a.m. Timothy suffered a major stroke and remained paralyzed on his right side.
The Thompsons sued Tyson alleging negligence (training/supervision; failure to provide emergency treatment; failure to provide appropriate medical assistance) and breach of implied contract.
Tyson moved for summary judgment arguing the claim was governed by the Arkansas Medical Malpractice Act (AMMA), that plaintiffs lacked a qualified causation expert, and proffered Dr. Hank Simmons’ report denying causation; plaintiffs countered AMMA inapplicability and later produced Dr. Bob Gale to dispute causation.
The trial court granted Tyson’s summary-judgment motion without explaining the basis; the Court of Appeals reversed, holding a genuine material fact issue on causation existed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is this a medical-malpractice action governed by the AMMA?	Thompson: Tyson is not a medical-care provider and AMMA does not apply.	Tyson: This is medical-malpractice; AMMA governs and requires qualified expert proof on causation.	Court: Declined to decide AMMA applicability on record; did not resolve that threshold.
Were plaintiffs required to produce a medically qualified expert on causation?	Thompson: Initially identified an RN and later produced Dr. Gale to rebut defense expert.	Tyson: Plaintiffs’ RN is unqualified; Dr. Gale is unqualified or his opinions on causation are insufficient.	Court: Existence of competing expert opinions (Dr. Simmons vs. Dr. Gale) created a material fact question on causation.
Did Tyson prove absence of causation as a matter of law?	Thompson: Disputed via Dr. Gale’s deposition that Tyson’s conduct precluded timely treatment.	Tyson: Dr. Simmons’ report shows no causal link between Tyson’s care and injury.	Court: No — disputed expert testimony prevents summary judgment for Tyson.
Was summary judgment appropriate given the evidentiary submissions?	Thompson: Evidence (Gale dep.) raises genuine issue; procedural irregularities in how defense submitted opinions noted.	Tyson: Submitted evidence (Simmons letter) and argued plaintiffs failed to meet proof with proof.	Court: Reversed — trial court erred in granting summary judgment because material fact on causation remained.

Druyvestein v. Gean, 445 S.W.3d 529 (Ark. Ct. App. 2014) (summary-judgment standard and burden-shifting; viewing evidence for nonmoving party)