Smith v. Anderson
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
08/09/2016 DA 16-0101 Case Number: DA 16-0101 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2016 MT 192N BRIAN D. SMITH, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. REBECCA S. ANDERSON, M.D., and RODNEY G. HEATON, M.D., Defendants and Appellees. APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, In and For the County of Missoula, Cause No. DV-15-271 Honorable John W. Larson, Presiding Judge COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: Brian D. Smith (Self-Represented), Shelby, Montana For Appellees: J. Daniel Hoven, Evan M.T. Thompson, Browning, Kaleczyc, Berry & Hoven, P.C., Helena, Montana Submitted on Briefs: July 20, 2016 Decided: August 9, 2016 Filed: __________________________________________ Clerk Chief Justice Mike McGrath delivered the Opinion of the Court. ¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court Internal Operating Rules, this case is decided by memorandum opinion and shall not be cited and does not serve as precedent. Its case title, cause number, and disposition shall be included in this Court’s quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana Reports. ¶2 Brian D. Smith appeals from the District Court’s order filed September 23, 2015, granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment, granting defendants’ motion for protective order, and denying plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel. We affirm. ¶3 Smith brought this medical negligence case against the defendant doctors, who treated him at Community Medical Center in Missoula on April 2, 2011. Defendant Anderson is certified in internal medicine and defendant Heaton is certified in family practice. Both work as hospitalists at Community Medical Center. Smith alleged that the doctors administered inappropriate medications to him, that they did not obtain informed consent from him, and that they negligently released him from the hospital. ¶4 Montana law has long required that the elements of a medical negligence claim be supported by expert testimony. Montana Deaconess Hosp. v. Gratton, 169 Mont. 185, 189, 545 P.2d 670, 672 (1976). In response to a deadline set by the District Court, Smith identified forensic psychiatrist Dr. William Stratford as his medical expert. Defendant doctors moved for summary judgment when they learned that Dr. Stratford had not evaluated Smith’s claims and had not agreed to appear as an expert. They also contended 2 that Stratford was not an expert in the medical specialties that they practice. Smith opposed the motion, contending that his claims were easily understood by ordinary persons and therefore required no expert testimony. ¶5 The District Court determined that Smith’s allegations of medical negligence, including allegations of inappropriate medication and unwarranted discharge, were not topics readily understood by lay persons. Therefore, the District Court determined that expert medical testimony by a practitioner in the appropriate medical field was necessary to support Smith’s case. Estate of Wilson, 2011 MT 179, ¶ 17, 361 Mont. 269, 258 P.3d 410. Since Dr. Stratford knew nothing about Smith’s case and had not agreed to testify for him, the District Court concluded that Smith did not have the necessary expert to support his claims and that his complaint should be dismissed as a matter of law. We agree with the District Court. ¶6 Based upon this disposition of the case, the District Court properly granted the protective order sought by the defendant doctors and properly denied Smith’s motion for appointment of counsel. ¶7 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c) of our Internal Operating Rules, which provides for memorandum opinions. In the opinion of the Court, this case presents a question controlled by settled law. ¶8 Affirmed. /S/ MIKE McGRATH 3 We Concur: /S/ JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA /S/ LAURIE McKINNON /S/ BETH BAKER /S/ JIM RICE 4
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.
