Table of Contents
|
Petersen v. Simon
Civil Procedure, Medical Malpractice, Personal Injury
Montana Supreme Court
|
Wollan v. Innovis Health
Civil Procedure, Medical Malpractice, Personal Injury
North Dakota Supreme Court
|
|
|
CLE credit is available for lawyers who are Justia Connect Pro members. Please visit individual webinar pages for more information about CLE accreditation.
|
Medical Malpractice Opinions
|
Petersen v. Simon
|
Court: Montana Supreme Court
Citation:
2024 MT 185
Opinion Date: August 27, 2024
Judge:
Shea
Areas of Law:
Civil Procedure, Medical Malpractice, Personal Injury
|
Monty Clarence Petersen filed a complaint on January 27, 2020, alleging that Jennifer J. Simon, APRN, committed medical malpractice by prescribing Lovenox within 24 hours of his surgery on January 25, 2018, causing him injuries. A summons was issued on October 31, 2022, and served on Simon on January 9, 2023. Simon moved to dismiss the complaint because Petersen did not serve it within six months of filing, as required by Montana Code Annotated § 25-3-106.
The Fourth Judicial District Court of Missoula County granted Simon's motion and dismissed the complaint with prejudice, citing the expiration of the two-year statute of limitations under § 27-2-205, MCA. The court interpreted the statute to allow dismissal with prejudice if the defendant had made an appearance and other substantive law supported such dismissal.
The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. The court held that § 25-3-106, MCA, mandates dismissal without prejudice for untimely service unless the defendant has made an appearance, which only affects the need for service, not the nature of the dismissal. The court found that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint with prejudice based solely on untimely service. The Supreme Court also noted that it could not issue an advisory opinion on whether a new complaint would be barred by the statute of limitations or statute of repose, as no new complaint had been filed.
The Supreme Court reversed the district court's order dismissing the complaint with prejudice and remanded the case for entry of an order dismissing the complaint without prejudice.
|
|
Wollan v. Innovis Health
|
Court: North Dakota Supreme Court
Citation:
2024 ND 169
Opinion Date: August 28, 2024
Judge:
Bahr
Areas of Law:
Civil Procedure, Medical Malpractice, Personal Injury
|
In September 2017, Michael Wollan was admitted to Essentia Health and died two days later. Mary Wollan, on behalf of Michael's heirs, filed a medical malpractice and wrongful death lawsuit against Essentia, seeking economic and noneconomic damages. The jury found Essentia at fault and a proximate cause of Michael's death, but also found a non-party at fault, allocating 25% fault to Essentia and 75% to the non-party. The jury awarded $500,657 in total damages, which included $116,657 in past economic damages.
The District Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District, held a jury trial and entered a judgment against Essentia, including costs and disbursements, totaling $639,292.06. Essentia's motion for a new trial was denied by the district court.
The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and found the jury's verdict inconsistent and irreconcilable, particularly the award of past economic damages, which exactly matched the amount requested by Wollan but did not align with the 25% fault allocation. The court concluded that the district court abused its discretion in denying Essentia's motion for a new trial. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment and remanded the case for a new trial, noting that the jury's damage award was not supported by sufficient evidence and was contrary to the record.
Additionally, the Supreme Court addressed other issues likely to arise on remand, including the admissibility of settlement evidence and the district court's exclusion of such evidence under N.D.R.Ev. 408. The court upheld the exclusion of settlement evidence, finding no abuse of discretion. The award of costs and disbursements was also reversed, consistent with the reversal of the judgment.
|
|
|
About Justia Daily Opinion Summaries
|
Justia Daily Opinion Summaries is a free newsletter service with over 65 newsletters covering every federal appellate court and the highest court in each U.S. state.
|
Justia also provides weekly practice area newsletters in 60+ different practice areas. All daily and weekly Justia Newsletters are free. You may request newsletters or modify your preferences by visiting daily.justia.com.
|
Please note that 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 any summary for legal research purposes.
|
You may freely redistribute this email in whole.
|
About Justia
|
Justia’s mission is to make law and legal resources free for all.
|
More Free Upcoming Webinars |
|
|
CLE credit is available for lawyers who are Justia Connect Pro members. Please visit individual webinar pages for more information about CLE accreditation.
|
|