Opinion ID: 1707689
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Palmer v. Wooten

Text: Wooten answered Palmer's complaint on April 27, 1983. Basically, Wooten contends that his sole responsibility was to render certain treatment to a fracture of the mandible or jawbone and that he was at no time responsible for or undertook overall care or treatment or examination of Patricia. On May 13, Wooten timely filed answers to Palmer's interrogatories and request for production of documents. Wooten subsequently propounded interrogatories to, and requested documents from, Palmer on May 18. Palmer, however, failed to respond. On July 25, Wooten filed a motion to compel. Nearly two months later, on September 19, Palmer filed her answers to Wooten's interrogatories and request for documents; these answers were incomplete. On September 30, then-presiding Circuit Court Judge Vlahos ordered Palmer to supplement proper answers to Wooten's interrogatories; these answers were filed on October 7, 1983. Palmer's supplemental answers were as incomplete as her original answers. Consider the following examples. Interrogatory No. 3: List every fact, opinion, document and other piece of evidence which plaintiff claims supports the allegation in paragraph III of the complaint that while at defendant hospital the deceased Patricia Leanne Palmer sustained a stress ulcer. Palmer's Original Answer to No. 3: See the hospital records, the death certificate and the autopsy report. Court Order to Supplement Answer to No. 3: With reference to Interrogatory No. 3 and the answer thereto, the plaintiff shall specify what documents within the hospital records plaintiff and [her] attorneys rely on in alleging that the deceased sustained a stress ulcer. Palmer's Supplemental Answer to No. 3: Please see response to Interrogatory No. 4 of the original answers to Interrogatories. Palmer's Original Answer to No. 4: See death certificate and autopsy report. Interrogatory No. 5: List every fact, opinion, document and other piece of evidence which plaintiff claims supports the allegations in paragraph III of the complaint that the defendant Wooten was in charge of treating the said patient and making said diagnosis as to her illness and injuries. Palmer's Original Answer to No. 5: Please see medical records which indicate that he was a member of the treating staff rendering diagnosis, surgery and other treatment to the deceased. Court Order to Supplement Answer to No. 5: With respect to Interrogatory No. 5 and the answer thereto, plaintiff shall specify what specific diagnosis and treatment [she] and [her] attorneys contend Dr. Wooten had primary responsibility for as opposed to any other defendant or other physician, and shall specify what particular documents within the medical records plaintiff and [her] attorneys contend supports [sic] such allegations. Palmer's Supplemental Answer to No. 5: Plaintiff will supplement this Interrogatory after the taking of the Defendant's deposition. [8] Interrogatory No. 14: List every fact, opinion, document and other piece of evidence which plaintiff contends supports the allegation that defendant Wooten should have called in each of the persons or categories of persons listed in answer to the preceding interrogatory. Palmer's Original Answer to No. 14: Please see the medical records. Court Order to Supplement Answer to No. 14: With respect to Interrogatory No. 14 and the answer thereto, plaintiff shall specify what documents within the medical records [she] and [her] attorneys rely upon with respect to Interrogatory No. 14. Palmer's Supplemental Answer to No. 14: Plaintiff will supplement [her] answers to this question after the taking of the deposition of the Defendant. Interrogatory No. 19: For each person you expect to call as an expert witness at the tiral [sic] of this cause, give: (a) The expert's name and current address; (b) The subject matter upon which the expert is expected to testify; (c) The substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify; and (d) A summary of the grounds for each opinion. Palmer's Original Answer to No. 19: The plaintiff [does] not have an expert at this time. Court Order to Supplement Answer to No. 19: No order given. Palmer's Supplemental Answer to No. 19: No supplemental answer provided until August 22, 1986  approximately three years and three months after Wooten propounded the interrogatory to Palmer. Approximately two years and four months later  on February 13, 1986  Wooten filed a motion for summary judgment. The hearing on the motion commenced on June 13. Notably, no action by Palmer transpired between October 7, 1983, and June 10, 1986  albeit Palmer notified all defendants on October 5, 1983, of her intention to depose them. During this quiet period, unsuccessful attempts to motivate Palmer to act were made by at least one of the defendants. On June 10, 1986  only three days prior to the summary judgment hearing  Palmer finally responded; she filed affidavits in opposition to Wooten's motion. These affidavits revealed to Wooten for the first time Palmer's proffered experts  Dr. Timothy Lamphier and Marilyn Palmer (Patricia's mother). [N]o additional supplementation to discovery [had to date been] filed by Palmer and, in particular, no response [had been] made to ... Wooten's expert interrogatory (quote from trial judge's written opinion). During the hearing, presiding Judge Thomas struck the affidavits sua sponte because they comprised mere conclusory, nonfactual opinions. He subsequently recessed the hearing until July 9 in order to review the voluminous case file and to provide Wooten an opportunity to belatedly depose Lamphier. Palmer was also informed by the judge that additional factually-supported affidavits could be filed. Depositions of Lamphier as well as Wooten and Wooten's proffered expert, John N. Kent, M.D., were taken and filed at the circuit court. At the judge's request, the July 9 hearing date was rescheduled to August 29, 1986. On August 22, 1986, Palmer filed supplemental answers to Wooten's interrogatories. At Palmer's request, the August 29 hearing date was rescheduled; on October 6, the hearing continued and concluded. And on October 23, 1986, Wooten's motion for summary judgment was granted: After considering the pleadings, discovery, affidavits, testimony and argument of counsel; and resolving all factual issues in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, it is the conclusion of this Court that summary judgment must be granted to Dr. Wooten on three bases: a) Failure of plaintiff to properly respond to discovery and court order; b) Disqualification of plaintiff's expert; c) failure of plaintiff to present a triable issue of fact. The judge elaborated in a written analysis and iterated that each of the bases for granting summary judgment are independent of one another.