Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_06-cv-05153/USCOURTS-arwd-5_06-cv-05153-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

ANDREA NEWTON PLAINTIFF

v. CASE NO. FA-06-5153

CLINICAL REFERENCE LABORATORY, 

INC., a foreign corporation; 

GLOBALLAB SOLUTIONS, INC., a 

foreign corporation; and 

JOSEPH D. SPATARO, M.D., 

an individual DEFENDANTS

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS

There are several motions before the Court. They

include: Separate Defendant Clinical Reference Laboratory’s

Motion to Dismiss and Supplemental Brief (Docs. 9 & 10);

Separate Defendant Globallab Solutions, Inc.’s, Motion to

Dismiss and Supplemental Brief (Docs. 13 & 14); Separate

Defendant Joseph Spataro’s Motion to Dismiss and Supplemental

Brief (Docs. 5 & 6); and Plaintiff’s Responses (Docs. 19 &

20). The motions by Separate Defendants Clinical Reference

Laboratory and Globallab Solutions, Inc., attack the

Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which

relief may be granted. Separate Defendant Spataro’s motion

specifically attacks Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to

include an expert affidavit within thirty days of filing the

Complaint pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 16-114-209(b)(3)(B).

For the reasons that follow, Separate Defendants’ motions to

dismiss are GRANTED. 

I. Motion to Dismiss Standard

Case 5:06-cv-05153-RTD Document 34 Filed 12/28/06 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: <pageID>
Page 2 of 8

In ruling on a motion to dismiss, the district court must

accept the allegations contained in the complaint as true, and

all reasonable inferences from the complaint must be drawn in

favor of the non-moving party. Hafley v. Lohman, 90 F.3d 264,

266 (8th Cir. 1996). Complaints should be liberally construed

in the plaintiff’s favor and should not be dismissed for

failure to state a claim “unless it appears beyond doubt that

the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of [her]

claim which would entitle [her] to relief.” Rucci v. City of

Pacific, 327 F.3d 651, 652 (8th Cir. 2003) (quoting Conley v.

Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)).

II. Factual Summary and Discussion

The following facts are undisputed unless noted. On June

7, 2005, the Plaintiff was at work with the Cherokee Nation

Enterprises West Siloam Springs Casino in West Siloam Springs,

Oklahoma (“Casino”), when she was singled out for a random

drug test. An employee of the Casino collected an oral swab

specimen for drug analysis which was then shipped to Separate

Defendant Clinical Reference Laboratory (CRL). CRL analyzed

the oral swab specimen and reported it positive for marijuana

metabolite. The results were forwarded to Separate Defendant

Globallab Solutions, Inc. (Global), for a Medical Review

Officer to process the test and result. 

Separate Defendant Joseph D. Spataro, M.D., (Dr. Spataro)

Case 5:06-cv-05153-RTD Document 34 Filed 12/28/06 Page 2 of 8 PageID #: <pageID>
Separate Defendant Global denies that Dr. Spataro is an employee of Global. 1

Page 3 of 8

performed the Medical Review Officer function of the test,

which included contact with the Plaintiff in Arkansas to

discuss the results and determine whether the test results

would be confirmed as positive or rejected. Dr. Spataro 1

called but could not reach Plaintiff directly, and left a

message on her answering machine. Dr. Spataro then contacted

the Plaintiff on her unlisted cellular telephone number.

Plaintiff alleges this cellular number was not on any of the

forms provided as part of the drug test nor available

otherwise as it was an unlisted number. She contends it

follows that Dr. Spataro must have obtained the number from

Plaintiff’s employer. Plaintiff also contends Dr. Spataro

must have been in contact with Plaintiff’s employer before he

spoke with Plaintiff, in order to get the unlisted cellular

phone number, which would be in violation of the standard of

care for a medical review officer. 

Separate Defendant Dr. Spataro confirmed the positive

results of the test after speaking with Plaintiff, but

allegedly failed to inquire as to any medications that

Plaintiff may have taken around the time of the drug test.

The Casino terminated Plaintiff’s employment, and she alleges

the termination occurred as a result of the Defendants’

negligence. 

Case 5:06-cv-05153-RTD Document 34 Filed 12/28/06 Page 3 of 8 PageID #: <pageID>
Page 4 of 8

In their motions to dismiss, Separate Defendants CRL and

Global raise the issue of whether either company owed

Plaintiff a duty to exercise reasonable care in the

performance of their functions of her employment related drug

test, and whether her complaint states a cause of action in

that regard. Separate Defendant Spataro contends that

Plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed for failure to state

a claim because Plaintiff failed to properly file an expert

affidavit within the required thirty days after filing her

complaint (Doc. 6) as required under Arkansas law. Plaintiff,

in response, contends that Ark. Code Ann. § 16-114-209 is a

procedural statute and has no application in federal court,

and that this is an action for common law negligence, not

malpractice (Doc. 20). 

Arkansas law requires a plaintiff to file with the court

an affidavit of an expert within thirty (30) days of filing of

the complaint. Ark. Code Ann. § 16-114-209. If an affidavit

is not filed within the required thirty (30) days, “the

complaint shall be dismissed by the court.” Ark. Code Ann.

16-114-209(b)(9)(3)(B)(emphasis added). According to Arkansas

law, an “‘action for medical injury’ means any action against

a medical care provider, whether based in tort, contract, or

otherwise, to recover damages on account of medical injury.”

Ark. Code Ann. § 16-114-201. The Arkansas Code also defines

Case 5:06-cv-05153-RTD Document 34 Filed 12/28/06 Page 4 of 8 PageID #: <pageID>
Page 5 of 8

medical injury:

“Medical injury” or “injury” means any adverse

consequences arising out of or sustained in the course of

the professional services being rendered by a medical

care provider, whether resulting from negligence, error,

or omission in the performance of such services; or from

rendition of such services without informed consent or in

breach of warranty or in violation of contract; or from

failure to diagnose; or from premature abandonment of a

patient or of a course of treatment; or from failure to

properly maintain equipment or appliances necessary to

the rendition of such services; or otherwise arising out

of or sustained in the course of such services. 

Ark. Code Ann. § 16-114-201. 

The Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that her injury

occurred as a result of the professional services rendered by

the Separate Defendants (Doc. 1). Although Plaintiff contends

this is a negligence action, and not subject to the medical

malpractice laws of Arkansas, she has failed to show why this

shall not be considered an action against a medical care

provider, “based in tort, contract, or otherwise.”

Accordingly, the Court finds this action governed under

Arkansas Malpractice Law. Clearly then, an expert affidavit

would normally be required to have been filed within thirty

(30) days of the filing of a complaint alleging negligence by

a physician. However, Ark. Code Ann. § 16-114-206 requires

expert testimony only “when the asserted negligence does not

lie within the jury’s comprehension as a matter of common

knowledge....” 

The Arkansas Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals have

Case 5:06-cv-05153-RTD Document 34 Filed 12/28/06 Page 5 of 8 PageID #: <pageID>
Page 6 of 8

found very few instances in which expert testimony would not

be required, and these cases are distinguishable from

Plaintiff’s case. A surgeon’s failure to properly sterilize

his instruments or failure to remove a sponge from a surgical

incision were found to be within the common knowledge of the

jury. Lanier v. Trammell, 180 S.W.2d 818 (1944); Haase v.

Starnes, 915 S.W.2d 675, 678 (1996). Here, Plaintiff must

prove the applicable standard of care for a medical review

officer. The complex pathology involved in the drug testing

procedures places this matter beyond the common knowledge of

the jury, as does the standard of care issue applicable to

medical review officers. Therefore, the exception to the

expert affidavit filing requirement does not apply in this

case. 

The Court finds the requirements of Ark. Code Ann. § 16-

114-209(b)(1) have not been met. Plaintiff filed a response

to Dr. Spataro’s motion to dismiss, but it was filed more than

sixty (60) days after the complaint. The response included a

lengthy affidavit from her expert (Doc. 18 & 19). Not only

did this fail the substantive affidavit filing requirements,

but it was also filed past the thirty (30) day time limit. 

Plaintiff also contends, without providing any

substantive support, that the affidavit filing requirement is

a procedural state law and not applicable in federal court.

Case 5:06-cv-05153-RTD Document 34 Filed 12/28/06 Page 6 of 8 PageID #: <pageID>
Page 7 of 8

The purpose of enacting the affidavit statute was a policy

choice in favor of the early dismissal of meritless lawsuits

which is clearly a decision that is outcome-determinative.

There are no countervailing federal interests that would

prevent the Arkansas statute from being applied in this Court,

and Plaintiff has failed to provide any persuasive reasons.

Plaintiff argues that because the affidavit filing statute is

found within the title dealing with “practice, procedure and

court,” it is necessarily a procedural statute. (Doc. 19-1).

Several states have statutes similar to Ark. Code Ann. §

16-144-209 and several have been found part of the substantive

law of the respective states by federal courts. See, e.g.,

Weasel v. St. Alexius Medical Center, 230 F.3d 348 (8th Cir.

2000) (affirming the dismissal of a diversity medical

malpractice action by a federal district court for failure to

file an expert affidavit as required under North Dakota law);

Ellingson v. Walgreen Co., 78 F. Supp. 2d 965 (D. Minn.

1999)(holding that a Minnesota statute requiring the filing of

an expert affidavit is substantive law to be applied by

federal courts sitting in diversity). 

Accordingly, this case is dismissed pursuant to the

express language of Ark. Code Ann. § 16-114-209(b)(3)(B). The

Court need not reach the merits of the other issues for

dismissal. 

Case 5:06-cv-05153-RTD Document 34 Filed 12/28/06 Page 7 of 8 PageID #: <pageID>
Page 8 of 8

III. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS the pending

motions to dismiss. This case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE,

with each party to bear its own costs and fees. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this 28th day of December, 2006.

/s/ Robert T. Dawson 

Robert T. Dawson

United States District Judge

Case 5:06-cv-05153-RTD Document 34 Filed 12/28/06 Page 8 of 8 PageID #: <pageID>