Title: LARRY HOFFMAN, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Gregory Bryan Pickett, III, Deceased v. BRIAN DARNELL, D.O., and JOHNSON COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

LARRY HOFFMAN, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Gregory Bryan Pickett, III, Deceased v. BRIAN DARNELL, D.O., and JOHNSON COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT2011 WY 65Case Number: No. S-10-0165Decided: 04/13/2011NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in Pacific Reporter Third. Readers are requested to notify the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Supreme Court Building, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002, of any typographical or other formal errors so correction may be made before final publication in the permanent volume.
APRIL 
TERM, A.D. 2011

 
 
LARRY HOFFMAN, as 
Personal Representative of the Estate of Gregory Bryan Pickett, III, 
Deceased,

Appellant 
(Plaintiff),

 
 
v.

 
 
BRIAN DARNELL, D.O., 
and JOHNSON COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT,

Appellees 
(Defendants).

 
 
 
 
Appeal 
from the District Court of Johnson County

The 
Honorable John G. Fenn, Judge

 

Representing 
Appellant:

Jeffrey J. Gonda and 
Amanda K. Roberts, Lonabaugh & Riggs, LLP, Sheridan, 
Wyoming.

 
 
Representing 
Appellees:

Billie L.M. Addleman, 
Hirst Applegate, LLP; Scott P. Klosterman and Frank D. Neville, Williams, 
Porter, Day & Neville, PC, Casper, Wyoming.

 
 
Before KITE, C.J., 
and GOLDEN, HILL, VOIGT, and BURKE, JJ.

 
 
BURKE, J., delivers 
the opinion of the Court; VOIGT, J., files a special 
concurrence.

 
 
BURKE, 
Justice.

 
 

[¶1]        
This 
case involves a claim arising under the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act 
(WGCA), 
Wyo. 
Stat. Ann. §§ 1-39-101 through -121 (LexisNexis 2007).  Appellant, Larry Hoffman, as personal 
representative of the estate of the decedent, Gregory Bryan Pickett, III, 
brought a wrongful death suit against Dr. Brian Darnell and the Johnson County 
Hospital District (Hospital).  The 
district court dismissed the action with prejudice, finding that it lacked 
subject matter jurisdiction to allow Appellant to amend his complaint.  We reverse.

 
 
ISSUES

 
 

[¶2]      
Appellant presents 
the following issues:

 
 

1.    
Whether the district 
court has discretion to allow leave to amend a complaint pursuant to W.R.C.P. 
15(a) to allege compliance with the constitutional and statutory requirements 
for governmental claims with specificity and, if so, whether the amendment 
relates back to the filing date of the original complaint.

 
 

2.    
Whether this Court 
usurped the authority of the Wyoming Constitution and the Wyoming Legislature by 
creating the "special pleading" rules, such that it violates the separation of 
powers between the branches of government.

 
 

3.    
Whether W.R.C.P. 
12(h)(3) requires the district court to dismiss a complaint for lack of subject 
matter jurisdiction when it has notice the complaint is 
defective.

 
 
FACTS

 
 

[¶3]        
Appellant, as 
personal representative of the decedent's estate, initiated a wrongful death 
action against the Hospital and Dr. Darnell upon filing a complaint in the 
Johnson County District Court.  
According to the complaint, on August 20, 2006, at 1:40 a.m., Mr. Pickett 
was taken to the Hospital's emergency room after complaining of back, side, and 
groin pain.  Dr. Darnell, the 
treating physician and an employee of the Hospital, diagnosed Mr. Pickett with a 
kidney stone.  After observing Mr. 
Pickett for approximately 12 hours, Dr. Darnell discharged him from the 
Hospital.  Later that evening, Mr. 
Pickett's wife called 911 after finding him unconscious in their bathroom.  When the ambulance arrived, Mr. Pickett 
was pale and unresponsive.  The 
personnel on duty at the Hospital were unable to resuscitate Mr. Pickett, and he 
was pronounced dead at 8:20 p.m.  An 
autopsy determined that he did not have a kidney stone but that a leaking 
abdominal aortic aneurysm had caused his death. 

 
 

[¶4]        
On February 4, 2008, 
Appellant presented a notice of claim to the Hospital.  The notice of claim was timely filed and 
satisfied all the requirements set forth in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-39-113(b) as to 
the contents of a notice of governmental claim.  The claim was also signed and sworn to 
under penalty of perjury in compliance with Article 16, § 7 of the Wyoming 
Constitution.

 
 

[¶5]        
On April 25, 2008, 
Appellant filed suit against the Hospital and Dr. Darnell within the two-year 
statute of limitations for a wrongful death action set forth in Wyo. Stat. Ann. 
§ 1-38-102.  Appellant's complaint 
stated that "[a]ll conditions precedent to the bringing of this action have been 
performed or have occurred, including the processing to completion of an 
application for review of claim before the Wyoming Medical Review Panel, and the 
presentation and filing of this claim to and with the Johnson County Hospital 
District."  The Hospital and Dr. 
Darnell answered and asserted affirmative defenses.  At that time, neither the Hospital nor 
Dr. Darnell claimed that Appellant's complaint was insufficient to invoke the 
court's jurisdiction.  The court 
held a scheduling conference on August 4, 2008, and set trial for the week of 
August 24, 2009.

 
 

[¶6]        
On July 28, 2009, 
approximately 15 months after the case commenced, and after the statutes of 
limitations for a wrongful death action and for a governmental claim had 
expired, Appellees asserted that the complaint was insufficient to invoke 
subject matter jurisdiction and that the action should be dismissed.  Appellees filed a joint motion for 
judgment on the pleadings arguing the complaint was deficient because it failed 
to allege the date on which the notice of claim had been presented to the 
Hospital and failed to allege that the claim complied with the signature and 
certification requirements of the Wyoming Constitution, as required by Beaulieu v. Florquist, 2004 WY 31, 86 P.3d 863 (Wyo. 2004) 
(Beaulieu II).  Appellant moved for leave to amend 
the complaint to allege compliance with the WGCA and Wyoming Constitution.  Appellant attached a proposed amended 
complaint to the motion.  The 
district court determined that it was without subject matter jurisdiction to 
grant Appellant leave to amend the defective complaint and dismissed the action 
with prejudice because the statute of limitations had expired.  This appeal followed.

 
 
STANDARD OF 
REVIEW

 
 

[¶7]        
Whether a court has 
subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law, which we review de novo.  Brown v. City of Casper, 2011 WY 35, ¶ 8,      P.3d     ,      (Wyo. 2011).

 
 
DISCUSSION

 
 

[¶8]        
The 
facts in this case are not in dispute.  
Appellant filed a notice of claim that complied with Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
1-39-113(b) and Article 16, § 7 of the Wyoming Constitution in all respects. 
 In his complaint, however, 
Appellant did not allege the date on which the claim was presented to the 
Hospital and did not allege compliance with the constitutional signature and 
certification requirements for a notice of governmental claim.  For this reason, the district court 
determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to allow Appellant to 
amend the complaint.  

 
 

[¶9]        
In 
Brown v. City of Casper, we resolved 
inconsistency in our precedent on the issue of whether jurisdiction is invoked 
by a pleading that fails to allege compliance with the WGCA and the Constitution 
and held that "subject matter jurisdiction is invoked upon the filing of a 
complaint alleging a claim against a governmental entity."  Id., ¶ 9,       __ P.3d at      .  We further held that "in cases where a 
notice of claim has been properly presented but the complaint fails to allege 
that fact, district courts have the discretion to allow amendment of the 
complaint to cure the failure."  Id.  We summarized our holding as 
follows:

 
 
Pursuant 
to the constitution and the statute, the district courts have jurisdiction to 
hear and decide actions brought against governmental entities, whether or not 
compliance is alleged, if a notice of claim complying with the constitutional 
and statutory requirements has been presented. District courts also have 
jurisdiction to allow the amendment of a complaint to allege presentation of a 
notice of claim complying with the statute and constitution when such a notice 
was in fact timely presented. To the extent that Bell and its progeny held 
otherwise, those decisions are overruled.         

Id., 
¶ 44,       P.3d at      .  Finally, we held that, in accordance 
with W.R.C.P. 15(c), the amendment of a complaint to allege compliance with the 
constitutional and statutory requirements for a governmental claim relates back 
to the date of the filing of the original complaint.  Id., ¶ 46,       P.3d at      .

 
 

[¶10]     
We 
reaffirmed this holding in Madsen v. Bd. 
of Trs. of Mem'l. Hosp., 2011 WY 
36,       P.3d       (Wyo. 2011), Gess v. Flores, 2011 WY 48,       P.3d       (Wyo. 2011), and Fremont County Sheriff's Dep't v. Strom, 
2011 WY 64,       P.3d       (Wyo. 2011).  Our decisions in those cases are 
controlling on the question presented in Appellant's first issue and require 
reversal of the district court's order dismissing Appellant's complaint and 
denying Appellant's motion to amend the complaint.  In light of this disposition, we do not 
address Appellant's remaining issues.

 
 

[¶11]     
We reverse and remand 
to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this 
opinion.

  

VOIGT, 
Justice, specially 
concurring.

 
 
[¶12]   I concur in the result of the 
majority opinion out of respect for the doctrine of stare decisis, but I believe the result 
is wrong.  See Fremont County Sheriff's Dep't v. 
Strom, 2011 WY 64, ¶ ___, 
___ P.3d ___, ___ (Wyo. 2011) (Voigt, J., specially concurring); Gess v. Flores, 2011 WY 48, ¶ 4, ___ P.3d ___, ___ 
(Wyo. 2011) (Voigt, J., dissenting); 
Madsen v. Bd. of Trustees of Mem'l Hosp. of Sweetwater County, 2011 WY 36, ¶ 22, ___ P.3d ___, ___ 
(Wyo. 2011) (Voigt, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); and Brown v. City of Casper, 2011 WY 35, ¶¶ 57-59, ___ P.3d ___, 
___ (Wyo. 2011) (Voigt, J., dissenting).