Opinion ID: 1164262
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: filing affidavits in opposition to motion for summary judgment

Text: Appellees were involved in different ways and at different times in the care and treatment of the deceased. It is not necessary to specify each appellee's individual involvement in the care and treatment of the deceased since our determination of the issues raised on appeal applies to all appellees, regardless of such involvement. The motions for a summary judgment filed by the respective appellees were accompanied by affidavits adequate for summary judgment purposes. When these motions were filed, appellant became obligated to offer competent evidence that would be admissible at trial showing that there were genuine issues of material fact. Rule 56(e), W.R.C.P. [2] ; Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 2739; DeHerrera v. Memorial Hospital of Carbon County, Wyo., 590 P.2d 1342 (1979); Keller v. Anderson, Wyo., 554 P.2d 1253 (1976); Mealey v. City of Laramie, Wyo., 472 P.2d 787 (1970); Newton v. Misner, Wyo., 423 P.2d 648 (1967). Appellant failed to meet this burden. The affidavits offered by appellant at the February 8, 1980, hearing were not timely offered and were, therefore, properly refused. Rule 56(c) [3] and Rule 6(d) [4] , W.R.C.P., provide that opposing affidavits be served at least one day prior to the hearing on the motion for a summary judgment. DeHerrera v. Memorial Hospital of Carbon County, supra. Appellant failed to comply with these rules. If opposing affidavits cannot be filed, the party opposing the motion for a summary judgment may file an affidavit pursuant to Rule 56(f), W.R.C.P., [5] setting forth the reasons why he cannot file an opposing affidavit. The party opposing a motion for a summary judgment may also or in the alternative file a motion pursuant to Rule 6(b), W.R.C.P., [6] requesting enlargement of the time in which to file the affidavits. A motion requesting enlargement provided for in Rule 6(b) must be filed before the expiration of the time originally prescribed (or extended by previous order). Appellant did not avail himself of the relief provided for in Rule 56(f) nor in Rule 6(b), W.R.C.P. Rule 6(b), W.R.C.P., further provides that upon motion made after the originally prescribed or extended period, the court may permit the act to be done if excusable neglect is shown. Appellant made no showing of excusable neglect nor good cause for his failure to file the motion contemplated by this rule. Crossan v. Irrigation Development Corporation, Wyo., 598 P.2d 812 (1979). The trial court was justified in refusing to consider affidavits offered on the day of the hearing on the motions for summary judgment. Appellant asserts that under Rule 56, W.R.C.P., the trial court has wide discretion in ordering or allowing further discovery. Appellant, in fact, appeals to the discretion of the lower court with respect to filing late affidavits. Ironically, at no time does appellant suggest that the trial court abused its discretion. We must assume, therefore, that appellant concedes that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. This concession, standing alone, is dispositive of the issue raised on appeal. Further, we find nothing in the record to suggest that the trial court abused its discretion. In passing, we note that even had the affidavits of Dr. McFarland and the affidavit of Virginia Rivera been timely filed, they are insufficient as a matter of law. Rule 56(e) requires that affidavits shall be made on personal knowledge and shall be based on competent evidence. Appellant's proffered affidavits are but hearsay on hearsay: Dr. McFarland's testimony was based upon what he heard from appellant's attorney who was relating narration from the appellant. Mrs. Rivera's testimony is hearsay. Furthermore, her affidavit fails to meet the Rule 56(e) requirement that it, show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated therein. Only an expert medical witness is competent to testify as to medical matters. Mrs. Rivera, not being a medical expert, is incompetent to testify as to these matters. See Keller v. Anderson, supra. An examination of Dr. McFarland's affidavits reveals that a modicum of foundation may have been admissible at trial in support of an opinion. The affidavits must, nevertheless, be rejected because it is impossible to tell which part of his opinion is based on competent evidence and which part is based on impermissible hearsay or suggestions from counsel. The Kansas Supreme Court recently disallowed testimony which was not personally found by the testifying physician, stating as follows: In Mesecher v. Cropp, 213 Kan. 695, 701-2, 518 P.2d 504 (1974), an examining physician was allowed to testify about findings made in a report prepared by a neurosurgeon who was not at trial. The appellate court noted that those facts or data were not perceived by or personally known to him, nor were they made known to him at the hearing in any acceptable way. The court concluded that the testimony was inadmissible. In the Interest of Marie Ann Watson, Kan. App., 615 P.2d 801, 803, 804 (1980).