Case Title: WYOMING HEALTH SERVICES, INC. v. DEATHERAGE

Citation: 

Docket Number: 88-178

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 1989-05-11T00:00:00Z

Document:
WYOMING HEALTH SERVICES, INC. v. DEATHERAGE1989 WY 104773 P.2d 156Case Number: 88-178Decided: 05/11/1989Supreme Court of Wyoming
WYOMING HEALTH SERVICES, 
INC., D/B/A RIVERTONMEMORIALHOSPITAL, A WYOMING CORPORATION; AND 
PARTHENON CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANTS (PLAINTIFFS),

v.

MARK F. DEATHERAGE, M.D., 
AND MARK F. DEATHERAGE, M.D., P.C., A WYOMING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, 
APPELLEES (DEFENDANTS).

Appeal from the District 
Court, FremontCounty, Robert B. Ranck, 
J.

W. Henry Combs, 
III and Roger E. Shumate (argued) of Murane & Bostwick, Casper, for appellants.

David E. 
Westling of Vlastos, Brooks & Henley, Casper, for appellees.

Before CARDINE, C.J., and THOMAS, URBIGKIT, MACY 
and GOLDEN, JJ.

CARDINE, Chief 
Justice.

[¶1.]     Appellant Wyoming 
Health Services, Inc. settled a medical malpractice claim for $700,000 and then 
commenced this suit seeking contribution from appellee, Dr. Mark Deatherage, 
M.D. After successive orders substituting parties, the district court granted 
summary judgment against Parthenon Insurance Company, an entity that had been 
dropped as a party. A judgment against a non-party is a nullity. There is no 
judgment against a party. There is, therefore, no appealable final 
order.

[¶2.]     The appeal is 
dismissed.

[¶3.]     Harley Foust died 
following treatment at RivertonMemorialHospital. His wife, representing his 
estate and other claimants, filed a malpractice suit against the hospital 
alleging negligence. The suit was settled for $700,000, and the claimants 
executed a release naming Hospital Corporation of America, Wyoming Health 
Services, Inc., RivertonMemorialHospital, and Parthenon Insurance Company 
as the entities being released. At the time, Parthenon Insurance Company and 
Wyoming Health Services, Inc., doing business as RivertonMemorialHospital, were subsidiaries of Hospital Corporation of 
America.

[¶4.]     The present action, 
commenced by Wyoming Health Services against Dr. Mark Deatherage, M.D., sought 
contribution of the amount paid in settlement which was attributable to the 
negligence of Dr. Deatherage. Dr. Deatherage moved to dismiss, claiming in part 
that Wyoming Health Services was not the real party in interest as required by 
Rule 17, W.R.C.P.; that Parthenon Insurance Company was, in fact, the real party 
in interest because it had actually drawn the settlement check. Wyoming Health 
Services then filed a motion seeking to add Parthenon as a supplemental party 
plaintiff, or, in the alternative, for an order substituting Parthenon as the 
sole party plaintiff.

[¶5.]     The district court 
entered an "Order Denying Motion to Dismiss and Granting Motion to Substitute 
Party Plaintiff." In the order, the court said:

"[P]laintiff has filed a 
Motion to name Parthenon Insurance Company as a supplemental plaintiff. Granting 
this motion would render moot the defendant's third ground for dismissal [lack 
of real party in interest]."

The court 
ordered that "plaintiff's Motion to Substitute Parthenon Casualty Insurance 
Company be granted." As a result, the real party in interest question was not 
decided on the merits.

[¶6.]     The court then allowed 
Dr. Deatherage to amend his answer to assert applicable defenses against 
Parthenon. Dr. Deatherage moved for summary judgment on the basis that Parthenon 
was an "unauthorized insurer" who was barred from filing suit by the provisions 
of W.S. 26-12-103. Both parties submitted memoranda and exhibits. Before the 
court issued a decision on the summary judgment motion, it entered the following 
"Order Concerning Proceedings":

"Way back when, the 
defendants said that Parthenon Insurance Company was a necessary and proper 
party to these proceedings. The authorities submitted in the defendant's 
Memorandum lead the Court to that conclusion; i.e., that Parthenon Insurance 
Company in a subrogation claim was, indeed, a necessary and proper 
party.

"It would seem unclear 
from reviewing the file whether the Hospital is still a party plaintiff, and now 
the defendants take the position that Parthenon Insurance Company cannot sue in 
Wyoming 
because of the insurance statutes. What a dilemma. The Court will now straighten 
it out.

"IT IS ORDERED, that 
Parthenon Insurance Company be dropped as a party plaintiff and the Hospital 
reinstated as a plaintiff in this case, and the case shall go forward 
accordingly."

The next action 
taken by the court was to grant defendant's motion for summary judgment against 
Parthenon. The net result of these actions was that the court granted summary 
judgment against Parthenon Insurance, an entity that had been dropped from the 
case.

[¶7.]     While the specific 
basis for the court's action in dropping Parthenon is not stated, Rule 21, 
W.R.C.P., provides that "[p]arties may be dropped or added by order of the court 
on motion of any party or of its own initiative at any stage of the action and 
on such terms as are just." Appellee argues that the order concerning 
proceedings is void because Rule 25, W.R.C.P., has not been complied with. Rule 
25 deals with substitution of parties in enumerated situations: death or 
incompetency of a party, transfer of interest subsequent to commencement of the 
action, or a public official leaving office. We are aware that some courts have 
interpreted Rule 25 to be the sole means of substituting parties. E.g., United 
States v. Swink, 41 F. Supp. 98 (E.D.Va. 1941). The better interpretation is 
that "there is no reason why a substitution of parties cannot be made under Rule 
21, in the discretion of the court and in the interest of justice, in situations 
not covered by Rule 25." 7 Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice and 
Procedure: Civil 2d § 1686, p. 463 (2d ed. 1986); see also National Maritime 
Union of America v. Curran, 87 F. Supp. 423 
(S.D.N Y 1949) and Board of Elec. Light Comm'rs of City of Burlington v. 
McCarren, 563 F. Supp. 374 (D.Vt. 1982). Neither party has demonstrated an abuse 
of discretion by the district court in regard to the 
order.

[¶8.]     The motion for summary 
judgment raised issues applicable only to Parthenon. Wyoming Health Services is 
not affected by the judgment. Since Parthenon was no longer a party to the suit 
when the summary judgment motion was granted, the court was without jurisdiction 
to enter judgment against it. The judgment is void. Consequently, there is no 
final order from which this appeal is taken. Rule 1.05, 
W.R.A.P.

[¶9.]     Appellants ask that we 
determine whether Parthenon must have a certificate of authority to be a party 
plaintiff in this litigation1 and to determine the real party in 
interest question. We decline to consider these questions at this time due to 
inadequacy of the record, lack of information regarding the contractual 
relationship between the parties, and because our opinion would be advisory. We 
do not ordinarily issue advisory opinions. Koontz v. Town of South Superior, 716 P.2d 358, 362 (Wyo. 
1986).

[¶10.]  The appeal is dismissed, and the case is 
remanded for further proceedings consistent with this 
opinion.

FOOTNOTES

1 To forestall further 
error in the event this issue arises after remand, we note that appellants argue 
at length in their brief that W.S. 26-12-103 specifically refers to W.S. 
26-12-102. The actual statutory reference is to W.S. 
26-3-102.