Title: Bodiford v. Bess

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

Gary BODIFORD, M.D. v. Ronald Keith BESS

97-462                                             ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
               Opinion delivered December 11, 1997


1.   Civil procedure -- how action commenced -- time limit for
     effective service. -- Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 3
     provides that an action is commenced by filing a complaint
     with the clerk of the proper court; however, effectiveness of
     the commencement date is dependent upon meeting the
     requirements of Ark. R. Civ. P. 4(i), which provides that if
     service of the summons is not made upon a defendant within 120
     days after filing of the complaint, the action shall be
     dismissed as to that defendant without prejudice upon motion
     or upon the court's initiative; however, the dismissal-
     without-prejudice language in Rule 4(i) does not apply if the
     plaintiff's action is otherwise barred by the running of a
     statute of limitations. 

2.   Civil procedure -- statute of limitations had run on cause of
     action -- trial court should have dismissed case with
     prejudice -- case affirmed as modified. -- Because the medical
     injury occurred on or before October 28, 1994, and service on
     appellant was not obtained and no extension sought within 120
     days after appellee filed his complaint on June 13, 1996, the
     statute of limitations ran on his cause of action; because the
     dismissal without prejudice language in Rule 4(i) does not
     apply if a plaintiff's action is otherwise barred by the
     running of a statute of limitations, the trial court should
     have dismissed appellee's complaint with prejudice; the trial
     court's judgment was modified to reflect that the dismissal of
     the complaint was with prejudice.


     Appeal from Sebastian Circuit Court, Fort Smith District; John
Holland, Judge; affirmed as modified.
     Davis, Cox & Wright, by:  Walter B. Cox and Tim E. Howell, for
appellant.
     No response.

     W.H."Dub" Arnold, Chief Justice.
     The appellant, Gary Bodiford, M.D., appeals an order
dismissing, without prejudice, the medical malpractice complaint of
appellee Ronald Keith Bess.  Dr. Bodifordþs sole argument on appeal
is that the dismissal should have been with prejudice.  We agree
and affirm the trial courtþs judgment as modified.  
     On June 13, 1996, Mr. Bess filed a pro se complaint against
Dr. Bodiford in the Fort Smith District of the Sebastian County
Circuit Court to recover damages for medical injury arising from
radial keratotomies that Dr. Bodiford performed on him on or about
July 23, 1993, and October 28, 1994.  Particularly, Mr. Bess
alleged that, during these eye surgeries, Dr. Bodiford carelessly
and negligently placed the cuts too close together on his eye,
resulting in diminished vision.  After filing the complaint, Mr.
Bess did not perfect service upon Dr. Bodiford within 120 days as
required by Ark. R. Civ. P. 4(i), nor did he file a motion to
extend his time to obtain service within the 120-day period as
required by the rule.
     Upon learning of the lawsuit informally, Dr. Bodiford filed a
motion to dismiss the case with prejudice on January 2, 1997. 
According to Dr. Bodiford, he was entitled to a dismissal with
prejudice because the malpractice alleged in the complaint occurred
on or before October 28, 1994.  Because Mr. Bess had not obtained
service on him and had not sought an extension within 120 days
after filing the complaint, Dr. Bodiford maintained that the
complaint had not been legally commenced.  It was Dr. Bodifordþs
contention that, since the complaint had not been legally
commenced, Mr. Bess was not entitled to the one-year saving
statute, codified at Ark. Code Ann.  16-56-126 (1987).  He
asserted that the two-year statute of limitations for medical
injury actions under Ark. Code Ann. 16-114-203 (1987), expired no
later than October 28, 1996, thus barring the action.  After
considering Dr. Bodifordþs motion, the trial court agreed to
dismiss Mr. Bessþs complaint, but entered an order of dismissal
without prejudice. 
     Arkansas Civil Procedure Rule 3 provides that an action is
commenced by filing a complaint with the clerk of the proper court. 
Sublett v. Hipps, 330 Ark. 58, 952 S.W.2d 140 (1997), citing
Forrest City Mach. Works, Inc. v. Lyons, 315 Ark. 173,