Title: Clark v. Johnson

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

Cite as 2010 Ark. 114 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. 09-114 MARY CLARK, APPELLANT, VS. D R . A R T H U R J O H N S O N , ORTHOPAEDICS, P.A., D/B/A RIVER VALLEY MUSCULOSKELETAL CENTER, SPARKS MEDICAL CENTER, JENNIFER DAVENPORT, STACEY WHEATLEY, KAREN JACK, JOHNSON REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, DR. BOYCE WEST, DR. ROBERT NOONAN, AND JOHN DOE #1, JOHN DOE INSURANCE COMPANY, JANE DOE #1, JANE DOE #2, and JANE DOE #3, APPELLEES, Opinion Delivered March 11, 2010 APPEAL FROM THE JOHNSON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, NO. CV07-167, H O N . D E N N I S C H A R L E S SUTTERFIELD, JUDGE, AFFIRMED. JIM HANNAH, Chief Justice Mary Clark appeals an order of the Johnson County Circuit Court dismissing her medical-malpractice claims against Appellees Sparks Regional Medical Center, Jennifer Davenport, Karen Jack, Dr. Arthur Johnson, and Orthopaedics, P.A. d/b/a River Valley Musculoskeletal Center for lack of proper venue, pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-55-213(e) (Repl. 2005). The circuit court granted Appellees’ motion to dismiss under Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3).1 1This appeal is undertaken pursuant to a certificate under Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b)(1) declaring that there is no just reason for delay and that the judgment is a Cite as 2010 Ark. 114 This case concerns an alleged indivisible medical injury suffered as a consequence of multiple acts of medical malpractice committed by various defendants in both Johnson County and Sebastian County. Clark filed simultaneous medical-malpractice actions in both counties, and based on section 16-55-213(e), each circuit court dismissed the defendants who were accused of committing medical malpractice in the other county. Clark has appealed from both orders, and the appeal from the decision in Sebastian County Circuit Court is also decided today. See Clark v. Johnson Regional Medical Center, 2010 Ark. 115, ___ S.W.3d ___. This appeal concerns an issue of first impression and a challenge to the constitutionality of section 16-55-213(e) under the separation of powers doctrine. Our jurisdiction is pursuant to Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 1-2(b)(1) and (b)(6). We affirm. The relevant facts are common to both actions and are set out in our opinion on the Sebastian County appeal. Further, in both appeals, Clark makes the same arguments, asserting that the circuit court erred in finding that Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-55-213(e) requires that all actions for medical injury be brought in the same county in which the alleged act or omission occurred and that the statute is unconstitutional because it violates the separation of powers doctrine set out in article 4, section 2 of the Arkansas Constitution. For the reasons set forth in Clark v. Johnson Regional Medical Center, 2010 Ark. 115, ___ S.W.3d ___ , we affirm the circuit court in the present case. DANIELSON and WILLS, JJ., concur. final judgment for all purposes. -2- Cite as 2010 Ark. 114 DANIELSON, J., concurring. For these reasons set forth in Clark v. Johnson Regional Medical Center, 2010 Ark. 115, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Danielson, J., concurring), I concur. WILLS, J., concurring. For the reasons set forth in Clark v. Johnson Regional Medical Center, 2010 Ark. 115, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Wills, J., concurring), I concur. -3-