Dachs v. Hendrix
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No.
08-1191
JOY DANIELLE DACHS and JOSHUA
ALLEN DACHS, Individually; and JOY
DANIELLE DACHS, AS SPECIAL
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE
OF ELIZABETH A N N E DACHS,
Deceased,
APPELLANTS,
Opinion Delivered MAY 28, 2009
APPEAL FR O M TH E GR EEN E
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, NO.
C IV-2006-243(B), H O N O R ABLE
DAVID BURNETT, JUDGE,
VS.
BARRY D. HENDRIX, M.D.; FAMILY
P R A C T I C E C L I N IC ; H E N D R I X
MEDICAL
SERVICES,
PLLC;
PARAGOULD
PHYSICIANS
M AN AGEM EN T, LLC; R EBECCA
F I S H E R , L .P .N .; C Y N T H I A A .
BARTHOLOMEW, R.N.; ARKANSAS
M ET H O D IST
H O SP IT A L
CORPORATION d/b/a ARKANSAS
METHODIST HOSPITAL, and d/b/a
ARKANSAS METHODIST MEDICAL
CEN TER; and CO N TIN EN TAL
CASUALTY COMPANY,
REBRIEFING ORDERED.
APPELLEES,
PER CURIAM
Appellants, Joy Danielle Dachs, individually and as special representative of the estate
of Elizabeth Anne Dachs, deceased, and Joshua Allen Dachs, individually, petitioned this court
for review of a decision of the court of appeals, which affirmed the Greene County Circuit
Court’s order granting summary judgment to Appellees, Barry D. Hendrix, M.D.; Family
Practice Clinic; Hendrix Medical Services, PLLC; Paragould Physicians Management, LLC
(hereinafter referred to collectively as “the physician defendants”); and Rebecca Fisher,
L.P.N.; Cynthia A. Bartholomew, R.N.; Arkansas Methodist Hospital Corporation d/b/a/
Arkansas Methodist Hospital, and d/b/a Arkansas Methodist Medical Center; and Continental
Casualty Company (hereinafter referred to collectively as “the hospital defendants”). Dachs
v. Hendrix, 103 Ark. App. 184 , ___ S.W.3d ___ (2008). When we grant a petition for
review of a decision by the court of appeals, we consider the appeal as though it had originally
been filed in this court. Skallerup v. City of Hot Springs, ___ Ark. ___, ___ S.W.3d ___ (May
14, 2009).
We granted review to address two issues of first impression: whether an amended
complaint asserting survival and wrongful-death claims that were time-barred can relate back
to a timely filed original complaint that alleged individual claims in addition to the survival
and wrongful-death claims asserted by an improper party, and whether the death of a minor
removes the minority-tolling provision of the Medical Malpractice Act. We are precluded
from reaching these two issues, however, because Appellants failed to include in the
addendum the hospital defendants’ brief in support of their first motion for summary
judgment. The hospital defendants’ second motion for summary judgment states that they
“incorporate the previous summary judgment motion and brief herein by reference.”
This missing brief in support of the summary judgment motion is “essential to an
understanding of the case” as required by Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(8), because it contains
argument and citations to authority advanced by the hospital defendants on the issues of
Appellants’ standing or lack thereof and whether the original complaint was therefore a
-2-
08-1191
nullity, which is one of the very issues Appellants challenge on appeal and upon which we
granted review. Moreover, we have recently stated that “an order of a circuit court cannot
be reviewed for error when the addendum fails to include the documents on which the order
was based.” Bryan v. City of Cotter, ___ Ark. ___, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Apr. 2, 2009) (per
curiam). The trial court’s order granting summary judgment in this case clearly states that
“the motions for summary judgment by all defendants” were before the court and that the
court considered “the pleadings of record, the applicable law and the arguments of counsel.”
We stated in Bryan that “[w]e have always shown a preference for a bright-line rule
with an objective standard, requiring the inclusion of pleadings and motions that led to the
order being appealed, over the subjective test advocated by the dissent.” Id. at ___, ___
S.W.3d at ___. It is because of this preference for a bright-line rule, as well as a preference
for consistently applying our rules, that we order rebriefing in this case. See, e.g., Meyer v.
CDI Contractors, LLC, ___ Ark. ___, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Mar. 5, 2009) (per curiam) (rebriefing
ordered for failure to include in record and addendum brief in support of response to motion
for summary judgment); see also Meyer v. CDI Contractors, LLC, ___ Ark. ___, ___ S.W.3d
___ (May 21, 2009) (per curiam) (affirming for failure to include in substituted addendum
brief in support of response to motion for summary judgment following order to rebrief).
It is Appellants’ burden to provide us with a record, abstract, addendum, and brief that
allows us to understand issues presented on appeal. Meyer, ___ Ark. ___, ___ S.W.3d ___
(May 21, 2009). Appellant’s failure to include the missing brief in support of the hospital
defendants’ motion for summary judgment is a failure to comply with Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-
-3-
08-1191
2(a)(8) and precludes our review of the issues presented. Pursuant to Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b),
we order Appellants to file a substituted addendum in the case within fifteen days from the
entry of this order. We encourage appellate counsel, prior to filing the substituted addendum,
to review our rules and the substituted addendum to ensure that no additional deficiencies are
present. Roberts v. Roberts, ___ Ark. ___, ___ S.W.3d ___ (May 21, 2009) (per curiam).
Rebriefing ordered.
G UNTER, J., not participating.
-4-
08-1191
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.