Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_05-cv-00845/USCOURTS-ared-4_05-cv-00845-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 362
Nature of Suit: Medical Malpractice
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Medical Malpractice

---

-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

WESTERN DIVISION

HELLEN S. NASH PLAINTIFF

Case Number: 4:05CV00845GH

JEFFREY A. HALL, M.D. . DEFENDANT

ORDER

Pending before the Court is defendant’s motion to stay because of a bankruptcy

proceeding in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona,

(“bankruptcy proceeding.”). Defendant asserts that this debt was discharged in the

bankruptcy proceeding. 

Plaintiff states that the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362 has expired as the

case has been closed. Plaintiff contends that her debt was not therefore discharged. 

Plaintiff’s claim against defendant, which was known to defendant at the time the

bankruptcy proceeding was filed, was not listed in the schedule and therefore,

according to plaintiff, is excepted from discharge by 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3).

Defendant states that he did not include the lawsuit in the bankruptcy schedule

because he mistakenly believed that his medical malpractice provider’s duty to

indemnify him had the effect of eliminating plaintiff as a creditor for bankruptcy

purposes.

 Defendant states that the failure to list a creditor in a no-assets Chapter 7

bankruptcy, as was the case with defendant, does not make the debt nondischargeable because, in such a bankruptcy, there are no assets to be distributed and

the creditor has not been prejudiced. The courts agree. See White v. Nielsen (In re:

Nielsen), 383 F. 3d 922 (9th Cir. 2004); Zirnhelt v Madaj (In re: Madaj), 149 F. 3d 467

(6th Cir. 1998) Judd v. Wolfe, 78 F. 3d 110 (3rd Cir. 1996). 

In sum, the Court finds that the debt has been discharged and the motion to stay

Case 4:05-cv-00845-JLH Document 43 Filed 11/03/06 Page 1 of 2
-2-

is granted.

Defendant has again filed a motion to transfer. The Court previously denied the

motion to transfer this case to the Jonesboro Division (see document no. 8). Defendant

has not presented any basis for the Court to reconsider its ruling denying the motion. 

Thus, the motion to transfer is denied. 

Also pending before the Court is defendant’s motion in limine. Defendant seeks

to keep plaintiff from presenting testimony of Dr. John Johnson regarding his personal

preferences. Dr. Johnson was a treating general surgeon practicing in Jonesboro who

saw plaintiff once. He is not an expert especially retained in connection with this

litigation. Defendant contends that Dr. Johnson is not familiar with the standard of

care in Pocahontas, Arkansas, where the surgery was performed and his observations

should be excluded.

Plaintiff counters that Dr. Johnson’s testimony is more of a factual nature, that is

whether he would have considered a preoperative CT scan helpful or advisable. 

Plaintiff asserts that Dr. Johnson would be of assistance to the jury in determining

whether defendant acted appropriately in failing to obtain potentially useful information

prior to the surgery.

The Court cannot, at this time, find that the testimony is inadmissible. The

Court will be in a better position to determine its admissibility when it is proffered.

Accordingly, the motion in limine is denied without prejudice to renew. The

motion to stay is granted. The motion to transfer is denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this 3rd day of November, 2006.

___________________________________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:05-cv-00845-JLH Document 43 Filed 11/03/06 Page 2 of 2