Wanda Mayes v. Saint Luke's Hospital of Kansas City, (Consolidated with)Wanda Mayes v. Saint Luke's Hospital of Kansas City
430 S.W.3d 260
| Mo. | 2014Background
- Mr. Mayes died on March 28, 2008 after infection developed from a same-day surgery performed by Dr. Stuart at Saint Luke’s.
- In 2010, plaintiffs filed case #1 alleging wrongful death and lost chance of recovery, then voluntarily dismissed it and refiled as case #2 with identical claims.
- Case #2 was dismissed for failure to file required health care affidavits under section 538.225; plaintiffs later filed case #3 with affidavits but it was time-barred.
- Plaintiffs asserted constitutional objections to section 538.225 in case #2, including open courts and trial by jury rights, and later raised a substantial-compliance theory in a motion to vacate.
- The trial court and appellate court concluded case #2 dismissal was final and appealable, rejected preservation of constitutional claims, and held no substantial compliance occurred; case #3 was time-barred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of §538.225 | Mayes argues open courts and jury rights are violated. | Defendants contend claims were not preserved and statute is constitutional. | Constitutional claims not preserved; statute not reviewed on merits. |
| Substantial compliance with §538.225 | Plaintiffs substantially complied by using affidavits from case #1 and Berg deposition. | No substantial compliance; affidavits not filed in case #2 and deposition not filed with court. | No substantial-compliance; not preserved for review; dismissal affirmed. |
| Finality/appealability of case #2 dismissal | Dismissal without prejudice may still permit appeal. | Dismissal without prejudice is generally not appealable when a new case is filed. | Case #2 dismissal was final and appealable despite refiling as case #3. |
| Timeliness of case #3 | If case #2 was dismissed improperly, case #3 should not be time-barred. | Case #3 was time-barred under statutes of limitations. | Case #3 time-barred; affirmance of dismissal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mahoney v. Doerhoff Surgical Servs., Inc., 807 S.W.2d 503 (Mo. banc 1991) (open-courts and jury rights context for 538.225)
- Getz v. TM Salinas, Inc., 412 S.W.3d 441 (Mo. App. 2013) (finality of dismissal without prejudice for appealability)
- Nicholson v. Nicholson, 685 S.W.2d 588 (Mo. App. 1985) (appealability and timing considerations in dismissals)
- United C.O.D. v. State, 150 S.W.3d 311 (Mo. banc 2004) (preservation of constitutional issues and error review)
- Pilgrim Evangelical Lutheran Church of Unaltered Augsburg Confession of St. Louis, Mo. v. Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod Foundation, 661 S.W.2d 833 (Mo. App. 1983) (preservation and articulation of constitutional claims)