Case Title: STORY v. STATE

Citation: 

Docket Number: 00-53

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 2001-01-09T00:00:00Z

Document:
STORY v. STATE2001 WY 315 P.3d 1066Case Number: 00-53Decided: 01/09/2001
OCTOBER TERM, 
A.D. 2000
January 9, 
2001

 JOHN H. STORY, M.D., Appellant (Plaintiff)v.STATE OF WYOMING; STATE OF WYOMING; JUDITH UPHOFF, Director of Corrections; JIM FERGUSON, Wyoming State Penitentiary Warden; JOHN PEERY; WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC., Corrections Health Care Division; DR. FERGUSON, a Wyoming  State Penitentiary Physician; and JAMES DAVIS, Department of Corrections Health Services Administrator, Appellees (Defendants)

 Appeal from the District Court of Carbon 
County

The Honorable Kenneth E. Stebner, 
Judge

 Representing 
Appellant:

            
Walter Urbigkit of Frontier Law Center, Cheyenne, Wyoming 

Representing Appellees State of Wyoming, Judith 
Uphoff, Jim Ferguson, and James 
Davis:

Gay Woodhouse, Attorney General; John W. Renneisen, 
Deputy Attorney General; and Jay Jerde, Assistant Attorney 
General

 Representing Appellees John Peery, Wexford Health Services, Inc., 
and Dr. Ferguson:

Misha E. Westby of Hirst & Applegate, P.C., 
Cheyenne, Wyoming 

Before LEHMAN, C.J.; THOMAS, GOLDEN & HILL, JJ.; and 
DAN SPANGLER, D.J. (RET.)

  SPANGLER, District Judge (Retired).

[¶1]           
Appellant 
John H. Story, M.D., sued Appellees State of Wyoming, Judith Uphoff, Jim 
Ferguson, James Davis, Wexford Health Sources, Inc., John Peery, and Dr. Donald 
Ferguson.  The individual defendants 
were dismissed on various motions.  
The case proceeded to trial against Wexford, resulting in a jury verdict 
for the defense.  In this appeal, 
the appellant challenges those outcomes.  
We affirm.

 ISSUES

[¶2]           
The parties 
raises these issues:

(1)  Did the trial court erroneously strike 
the subpoenas for two of  the 
appellant's witnesses?

(2)  Did the trial court erroneously deny the 
admission of several of the appellant's 
exhibits?

(3)  Did the trial court erroneously submit 
the case to the jury on only the issue of medical malpractice, rejecting the 
appellant's third-party beneficiary theory?

(4)  Did the trial court erroneously dismiss 
the claims against the individual 
defendants?

FACTS

 [¶3]           
The 
appellant, an inmate at the Wyoming State Penitentiary, reported to the 
infirmary on July 4, 1995.  Wexford 
had contracted with the State to provide health services at the 
penitentiary.  The appellant told 
the nurse, a Wexford employee, that he had a growth on his lower eyelid that had 
been there for ten months.  The 
nurse made an appointment for him to see an optometrist, Dr. Dick W. 
Lew.

[¶4]           
On August 
18, 1995, Dr. Lew examined the appellant and referred him to Dr. Ferguson.  Dr. Ferguson examined him on August 31, 
1995, and referred him to Dr. Paul W. Pheneger, an ophthalmologist who examines 
inmates once a month.  The appellant 
was scheduled for the next available appointment on October 12, 1995; however, 
he was not seen in October.  He 
claims he was neither advised of nor taken to the appointment.  Wexford states that either the appellant 
refused to be transported or there were transportation problems within the 
penitentiary.  On November 22, 1995, 
the appellant told Dr. Ferguson that he had not been seen by Dr. Pheneger.  Dr. Ferguson arranged for the next 
available appointment.

 [¶5]           
On December 
21, 1995, Dr. Pheneger examined the appellant and scheduled an appointment to 
excise and drain the lesion. This was accomplished on January 18, 1996.  Biopsies were also taken.  On February 14, 1996, the appellant was 
informed that he had a basal cell carcinoma.  Surgery was performed on February 20, 
1996.  On February 21, 1996, a 
diagnosis of sebaceous carcinoma arising from the meibomian glands of the deep 
tarsal plate was made.  The 
appellant underwent additional surgery on February 27, 
1996.

[¶6]           
The 
appellant states that the significant issue of fact is whether the cancerous 
growth was enlarging from June 20, 1995, until proper evaluation was obtained in 
December 1995 and January 1996.

THE APPELLANT'S WITNESSES

 [¶7]           
Two weeks 
before trial, the appellant listed two new witnesses in his pretrial 
memorandum.  The two witnesses were 
inmates at the penitentiary who would testify as to their observations of the 
lesion.  Wexford moved to strike the 
subpoenas on the grounds of unfair prejudice and surprise.  The trial court granted the motion but 
gave the appellant an opportunity to offer the witnesses as part of the case in 
rebuttal.  The appellant did not 
attempt to call the witnesses in rebuttal.

[¶8]           
In the case 
of Contreras v. Carbon County School District # 1, 843 P.2d 589, 596 (Wyo. 
1992), this Court stated: "Where a court gives a party seeking to admit evidence 
the opportunity to renew his attempt to have it admitted, the party cannot 
complain if he fails to take the opportunity which is offered."  Consequently, the appellant cannot claim 
error when he did not pursue the opportunity to offer the testimony at a later 
time.

THE APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS

[¶9]           
The 
appellant questions the trial court's rulings on several of his exhibits.  The standard of review is that decisions 
concerning admissibility of evidence are within the sound discretion of the 
trial court and will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of discretion.  Judicial discretion means exercising a 
sound judgment with regard to what is right under the circumstances without 
doing so arbitrarily or capriciously.  
Vaughn v. State, 962 P.2d 149, 151 (Wyo. 
1998).

[¶10]       
The 
appellant listed as an exhibit a report on the penitentiary prepared by the 
United States Department of Justice.  
During Wexford's motion in limine, the trial court deferred ruling on 
admissibility until the exhibit was offered at trial.  The appellant never offered the 
exhibit.  Thus, there is no ruling 
which the appellant can challenge.

 [¶11]       
The trial 
court sustained Wexford's objection at trial to the admission of the contract 
between Wexford and the State.  The 
appellant attempted to lay a foundation for the document through his own 
testimony.  He did not claim that he 
was a custodian or he had any other capacity from which to authenticate the 
document.  In order for a document 
to be admitted into evidence, the proponent must establish that the document is 
authentic.  W.R.E. 901.  The appellant did not accomplish 
this.  Therefore, the trial court's 
ruling was correct.

[¶12]       
The trial 
court sustained defense objections to various medical records on foundation 
grounds.  The appellant did not 
attempt to authenticate the records.  
Again, the trial court was correct in denying admission of 
unauthenticated documents.

[¶13]       
The 
appellant complains that his exhibit containing the health care standards of the 
National Commission on Correctional Health Care was not admitted.  The record demonstrates that the 
appellant did not offer the entire exhibit but offered only a portion of 
it.  The trial court allowed into 
evidence the relevant pages following testimony by the appellant's expert that 
he relied on those pages.  The 
appellant does not explain why that ruling was 
erroneous.

THE THIRD-PARTY BENEFICIARY CLAIM

 [¶14]       
The 
appellant asserts that error was committed when the trial court declined to 
instruct the jury on his claim that he was a third-party beneficiary of the 
health services contract between Wexford and the State.  Having earlier concluded that the trial 
court correctly denied admission of the contract into evidence, there was 
insufficient evidence to support the third-party beneficiary claim.  Thus, there was no basis for the jury 
instruction offered by the appellant.

 THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS

[¶15]       
The trial 
court granted summary judgment motions in favor of Dr. Ferguson and John Peery, 
both employees of Wexford.  The 
appellant does not explain why these rulings were incorrect.  In any event, the individual Wexford 
defendants were exonerated by the jury verdict that Wexford was not liable.  The appellant had a chance to present 
evidence that these employees were negligent.  If there had been sufficient evidence to 
persuade the jury that the employees were negligent, Wexford would have been 
found liable.  Because the appellant 
was not able to convince the jury that the Wexford employees were negligent, 
those summary judgment rulings are of no importance on 
appeal.

 [¶16]       
The 
appellant contests the trial court's decision granting summary judgment to Jim 
Ferguson, Warden of the Wyoming State Penitentiary, on a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim 
that he violated the cruel and unusual punishment prohibition of the Eighth 
Amendment to the United States Constitution when he acted deliberately and 
indifferently to the serious medical needs of a prisoner.  To establish deliberate indifference, a 
plaintiff must show that the prison official knew the inmate faced a substantial 
risk of harm and disregarded that risk by failing to take reasonable measures to 
abate it.  Hunt v. Uphoff, 199 F.3d 1220, 1224 (10th 
Cir. 1999).

[¶17]       
The 
standard of review for summary judgment issues is that the movant is entitled to 
summary judgment upon a showing that there is no genuine issue as to any 
material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.  W.R.C.P. 56(c).  The reviewing court examines the summary 
judgment materials in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary 
judgment and gives that party the benefit of all favorable inferences which may 
fairly be drawn from the record.  
McCoy v. Crook County Sheriff's Department, 987 P.2d 674, 676 (Wyo. 
1999).

[¶18]       
The 
relevant evidence in the record reveals that the warden met with the appellant 
in August and September of 1995.  
After the first meeting, the warden inquired of the medical department 
about the appellant's condition.  He 
was told that the appellant had been examined by Dr. Lew and referred to Dr. 
Ferguson.  The appellant also sent 
the warden copies of August and November letters he wrote about his health 
concerns.  There is no evidence of 
indifference, let alone deliberate indifference.  We affirm the trial court's grant of 
summary judgment to Warden Ferguson.

[¶19]       
The 
appellant also made deliberate indifference claims against Judith Uphoff, 
Director of Corrections, and James Davis, Department of Corrections Health 
Services Administrator.  These 
claims were dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to W.R.C.P. 
12(b)(6).  The standard of review is 
that this Court accepts the facts stated in the complaint as true and views them 
in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.  Gillis v. F & A Enterprises, 934 P.2d 1253, 1254-55 (Wyo. 
1997).  The dismissal will be 
sustained only when it is certain from the face of the complaint that the 
plaintiff cannot assert any facts that would entitle him to relief.  934 P.2d  at 
1255.

[¶20]       
The 
appellant's factual allegations do not show that these defendants acted 
deliberately and with indifference to deprive him of his right against cruel and 
unusual punishment.  The conclusory 
allegations are not sufficient to state a claim for deliberate 
indifference.  Meade v. Grubbs, 841 F.2d 1512, 1531 (10th Cir. 
1988).  As a result, we affirm the 
trial court's rulings.

CONCLUSION

 [¶21]       
The trial 
court did not commit errors in its rulings on witnesses, evidence, and 
instructions or its dismissal of the individual defendants.  Accordingly, we affirm the judgments in 
favor of the defendants.