Opinion ID: 2571500
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Affidavit of Dr. Cobbs

Text: [¶ 17] In his second issue, Mr. Jacobson contends that the district court erred when it relied exclusively upon the affidavit of Dr. Cobbs. Mr. Jacobson terms the affidavit as entirely self-serving and conclusory and contends that the district court should not have considered it. Mr. Jacobson offers no support for his position and fails to direct our attention to any specific portion of Dr. Cobbs' affidavit that he finds problematic. [¶ 18] W.R.C.P. 56(e) governs the submission of supporting affidavits for summary judgment purposes and provides that: Supporting and opposing affidavits shall be made on personal knowledge, shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated therein. Sworn or certified copies of all papers or parts thereof referred to in an affidavit shall be attached thereto or served therewith. The court may permit affidavits to be supplemented or opposed by depositions, answers to interrogatories, or further affidavits. When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided in this rule an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of the adverse party's pleading, but the adverse party's response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. If the adverse party does not so respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against the adverse party. Upon our review, we find that the affidavit of Dr. Cobbs is sufficient under these standards. The affidavit is based upon Dr. Cobbs' personal knowledge. It sets forth his qualifications and background. It describes his treatment of Mr. Jacobson. The medical records upon which Dr. Cobbs relied are attached and Dr. Cobbs sets forth his opinion that his treatment did not fall below the appropriate standard of care. [¶ 19] Mr. Jacobson also asserts that summary judgment was not proper because Dr. Cobbs failed to provide an affidavit from an independent medical doctor who has no interest in the pending case. He contends that an affidavit of a defendant doctor in a medical malpractice action is inadequate as a matter of law to provide an opinion regarding whether the doctor failed to meet the required standard of care. Again, Mr. Jacobson offers no legal authority to support that position and we would be justified in refusing to consider that argument. See, e.g., Odegard v. Odegard, 2003 WY 67, ¶ 29, 69 P.3d 917, 925 (Wyo.2003). [¶ 20] We would note, however, that a defendant doctor in a medical malpractice action may supply an affidavit expressing opinions regarding the standard of care and whether that standard was met in the instant case. For example, in Keller, we found affidavits submitted by the defendant doctors in support of their motions for summary judgment adequate. We stated: In support of their motions for summary judgment, the doctors filed factual and detailed affidavits describing the participation of each affiant in the plaintiff's case, delineating the details of the medical procedure, care, treatment and ministration. Each doctor expressed his opinion that the practices undertaken met and complied with the medical-care and treatment standards for like care and service at the time and place administered. The affidavit of the hospital was likewise factual and in all ways adequate for summary judgment purposes. Id., 554 P.2d at 1256. [2] Accordingly, Dr. Cobbs' affidavit was sufficient to support his motion for summary judgment. The district court did not err by considering it for purposes of summary judgment. [¶ 21] Because Dr. Cobbs' affidavit adequately supported his motion, the burden shifted to Mr. Jacobson to establish a genuine issue of material fact. W.R.C.P. 56(e). See also Mize v. North Big Horn Hosp. Dist., 931 P.2d 229, 232 (Wyo.1997). Mr. Jacobson could no longer rely only upon the allegations in his pleadings. He was required to affirmatively set forth material, specific facts in opposition to [the] motion for summary judgment. Jones, ¶ 10, 113 P.3d at 37. Mr. Jacobson failed to meet his burden. [¶ 22] Mr. Jacobson had adequate time to obtain expert testimony or other evidence to refute Dr. Cobbs' position, but he made no such effort. [W]here there are no material facts in dispute a summary judgment should be entered. This is the laweven in a negligence case. Keller, 554 P.2d at 1258. We find no error in the district court's decision to grant summary judgment.