Opinion ID: 2635157
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Appellate Standards of Review of Summary Judgment

Text: [¶ 20] Our standards for reviewing the district court's order granting summary judgment are well established. We treat the summary judgment movant's motion as though it has been presented originally to us. Havens, 902 P.2d at 220. We use the same materials in the record that was before the district court. Hatton v. Energy Elec. Co., 2006 WY 151, ¶ 8, 148 P.3d 8, 12 (Wyo. 2006). Using the materials in the record, we examine them from the vantage point most favorable to the nonmoving party opposing the motion, giving that party the benefit of all favorable inferences which may fairly be drawn from the materials. Rino, ¶ 12, 55 P.3d at 17. Summary judgments are especially not favored in professional malpractice actions, whether legal or medical. Jacobson v. Cobbs, 2007 WY 99, ¶ 7, 160 P.3d 654, 656-57 (Wyo. 2007); Gayhart v. Goody, 2004 WY 112, ¶ 12, 98 P.3d 164, 168 (Wyo. 2004). We subject such actions to more exacting scrutiny. Id. If doubt exists about the presence of genuine issues of material fact after we have reviewed the record, we resolve that doubt against the movant. Jacobson, ¶ 7, 160 P.2d at 656. The nonmoving party opposing the summary judgment motion has no obligation to counter the motion with materials beyond the pleadings until the movant has made a prima facie showing that genuine issues of material fact do not exist. Rino, ¶ 23, 55 P.3d at 20. We review questions of law de novo without giving any deference to the district court's determinations. Hatton, ¶ 8, 148 P.3d at 12. [¶ 21] Mindful of these foregoing principles of summary judgment law and our standards of review applicable to a district court's order granting summary judgment, we will now apply those principles and standards to the materials in this record to determine whether Mr. Schroth was entitled to have summary judgment entered in his favor in this case. [¶ 22] As noted above in the recitation of facts, Mr. Schroth supported his summary judgment motion with his own affidavit, the affidavit of Dr. Bricca, and the affidavit of Dr. Bossart. We shall now examine each affidavit in light of the well-established principles of summary judgment law identified earlier in this opinion. [¶ 23] Mr. Schroth's affidavit states: 1. I am a general practice attorney, fully licensed to practice in the State of Wyoming. 2. I am familiar with the standard of care applicable to general practice attorneys practicing in the State of Wyoming. 3. A copy of my resume is attached to this Affidavit and fully sets out my education and experience in the practice of law. 4. I am familiar with the applicable standards of care for review of medical malpractice cases such as that I provided for Brenda Bangs. 5. It is my professional opinion that I acted within the applicable standard of care relative to my review of, decision to not undertake prosecution of, and subsequent return to the client, of Brenda Bangs' potential medical malpractice case. My opinion is based on my education and experience as described above, as well as my consultation with medical experts. 6. It is also my opinion that no attorney-client relationship ever existed between myself and Ms. Bangs. 7. It is further my opinion that I referred Brenda in a timely manner to other attorneys who might take her case, and informed Ms. Bangs that I was unwilling to take it myself. I properly advised Ms. Bangs that her pro se complaint needed to be served within sixty days of filing it in order to preserve the statute of limitations. 8. It is my opinion, based upon my education, training and experience, and consultation with experts, that the physicians Brenda Bangs sought to sue, met the standard of care in all respects in their care of Brenda and her child. 9. I am also of the opinion that no action or inaction on my part caused or contributed to Brenda Bangs' alleged damages in this lawsuit, for the reason stated in paragraph seven above. [¶ 24] Mr. Schroth's affidavit is inadequate in several respects. He fails to state what the standard of care is in paragraphs two and four. He fails to attach a copy of his resume as he stated in paragraph three. He fails to state specific facts about his interaction and conduct with Ms. Bangs, and states only categorical assertions of ultimate facts without supporting facts in paragraphs five, six, seven, and nine. Incredibly, in paragraph eight, he offers a medical opinion that the physicians Brenda Bangs sought to sue . . . met the standard of care in all respects in their care of Brenda and her child. No evidence exists that Mr. Schroth is competent to testify about medical matters; only an expert witness is competent to testify about them. Smyth v. Kaufman, 2003 WY 52, ¶ 27, 67 P.3d 1161, 1169 (Wyo. 2003); Harris v. Grizzle, 625 P.2d 741, 751 (Wyo. 1981). In regard to Mr. Schroth's bald conclusion in paragraph six that no attorney-client relationship even existed between Ms. Bangs and him, we recall these words: Determining the existence of an attorney-client relationship depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and may be implied from the conduct of the parties, such as the giving of advice or assistance, or such as failing to negate the relationship when the advice or assistance is sought if the attorney is aware of the reliance on the relationship. Chavez v. State, 604 P.2d 1341, 1346 (Wyo. 1979), cert. denied 446 U.S. 984, 100 S.Ct. 2967, 64 L.Ed.2d 841 (1980). The determination of whether there is an attorney-client relationship is one of fact and, typically, is for the trier of fact and cannot be resolved by summary judgment. 2 R.E. Mallen and J.M. Smith, Legal Malpractice §§ 27.10, 27.22 (3d ed. 1989). Meyer v. Mulligan, 889 P.2d 509, 513-14 (Wyo. 1995). The district court erred when it did not strike Mr. Schroth's affidavit. [¶ 25] Next, we examine Dr. Bricca's affidavit. Dr. Bricca states: 1. I am a family practice physician, residing near, and practicing in Jackson, Wyoming. 2. I am familiar with the standard of care applicable to family practice physicians practicing nationally as well as in the State of Wyoming. 3. A copy of my Curriculum Vitae is attached to this Affidavit and fully sets out my training and experience in the field of family practice. 4. I am familiar with the applicable standards of prenatal obstetrical care such as that I provided to Brenda Bangs. 5. I am also familiar with the applicable standards of care for colon problems such as Brenda Bangs suffered during her pregnancy. 6. In preparation for my opinions, I have reviewed the following: A. LDS Hospital medical records for Brenda Bangs for her hospitalization of August 10, 2000, through September 10, 2000. B. St. John's Hospital medical records for Brenda Bangs for her hospitalization from August 8, 2000[,] through August 10, 2000. C. Medical records pertaining to Brenda Bangs from my own office chart dated May 22, 2000[,] through August 22, 2000. 7. I am aware of the standard of care for family practice physicians performing the type of care rendered by myself to Brenda Bangs during her pregnancy in 2000. 8. After reviewing the materials listed above, it is my opinion, to a reasonable degree of medical probability, that I acted within the applicable standard of care relative to the care rendered to Brenda Bangs between May 22, 2000, and August 10, 2000, when she was transferred to LDS Hospital in Salt Lake City for care throughout the remainder of her pregnancy. My opinion is based upon my experience, training, and review of the medical records. 9. It is further my opinion to a reasonable degree of medical probability that I referred Brenda in a timely manner to an appropriate specialist, Dr. Peter Bossart, a colorectal surgeon in Salt Lake City, UT. 10. On July 25, 2000, I wrote a letter of referral to Peter Bossart, M.D., for Brenda Bangs. On August 8, 2000, colonoscopy was performed by George Waterhouse, M.D., at St. John's Hospital, with a diagnosis of fulminant ulcerative colitis. On August 10, 2000, Brenda Bangs was transferred to LDS Hospital in the care of Bill Hudson, M.D., gastroenterologist. She was seen in consultation by Peter Bossart, M.D., and Joe Eyring, M.D., as well as the perinatology service at the University of Utah Medical Center. On August 18, 2000, Brenda underwent a Cesarean section delivery of her child prior to a total colectomy. I was told at this time that she would require at least three more procedures. Brenda's medical records indicate that prior to the Cesarean delivery of the baby, the perinatologist who evaluated Brenda found indications that the baby appeared to be in distress. 11. I am of the opinion, which I hold to a reasonable degree of medical probability, that the cause of Brenda Bangs' pregnancy complications which necessitated the preterm delivery of her child and her numerous subsequent surgical procedures, was toxic megacolon secondary to chronic ulcerative colitis, and were in no way preventable by myself. 11. [sic] It is further my opinion, to a reasonable degree of medical probability, that no action or inaction on my part caused or contributed to Brenda Bangs' pregnancy complications, need for surgeries related to her ulcerative colitis, or present condition. [¶ 26] Dr. Bricca's affidavit is inadequate in several respects. He fails to state the applicable standard of care for family practice physicians in paragraph two; the applicable standards of prenatal obstetrical care in paragraph four; and the applicable standards of care for colon problems like Ms. Bangs suffered during her pregnancy in paragraph five. He fails to state specific facts concerning Ms. Bangs' medical problems and his treatment of those problems; instead he merely makes categorical assertions and states bald conclusions. He fails to attach the medical records to which he refers and also fails to attach a copy of his curriculum vitae to which he refers. In paragraph ten, he has included inadmissible hearsay (I was told) from an unidentified source. As our precedent makes clear, for an expert's affidavit to meet W.R.C.P. 56(e)'s requirements, it must state in detail what Ms. Bangs' medical condition and problems were, what actions a physician in good standing in the community would undertake under similar circumstances, and what actions were taken by the physicians in question. If we do not know these matters, we cannot determine whether the physicians in question acted in accordance with the prevailing standard of care as they claim to have done. The district court erred when it did not strike Dr. Bricca's affidavit. [¶ 27] Finally, we examine Dr. Bossart's affidavit. Dr. Bossart states: 1. I am a colorectal surgeon, residing near, and practicing in Salt Lake City, Utah. 2. I am familiar with the standard of care applicable to colorectal surgeons practicing nationally as well as in the State of Utah. 3. A copy of my Curriculum Vitae is attached to this Affidavit and fully sets out my training and experience in the field of colorectal surgery. 4. I am familiar with the applicable standards of care for colon problems such as Brenda Bangs suffered during her pregnancy. 6. [sic] In preparation for my opinions, I have reviewed the following: A. LDS Hospital medical records for Brenda Bangs for her hospitalization of August 10, 2000, through September 10, 2000. B. St. John's Hospital medical records for Brenda Bangs for her hospitalization from August 8, 2000[,] through August 10, 2000. C. Medical records pertaining to Brenda Bangs from my own office chart. 7. I am aware of the standard of care for colorectal surgeons performing the type of care rendered by myself to Brenda Bangs during her pregnancy in 2000. 8. After reviewing the materials listed above, it is my opinion, to a reasonable degree of medical probability, that I acted within the applicable standard of care relative to the care rendered to Brenda Bangs in July and August of 2000, when she was transferred to LDS Hospital in Salt Lake City for care throughout the remainder of her pregnancy. My opinion is based upon my experience, training, and review of the medical records. 9. In July of 2000, I received a letter of referral from Dr. Bricca for Brenda Bangs and subsequently saw her in my office on one occasion. On August 8, 2000, colonoscopy was performed by George Waterhouse, M.D., at St. John's Hospital, with a diagnosis of fulminant ulcerative colitis. On August 10, 2000, Brenda Bangs was transferred to LDS Hospital in the care of Bill Hudson, M.D., gastroenterologist. She was seen in consultation by myself and Joe Eyring, M.D., as well as the perinatology service at the University of Utah Medical Center. On August 18, 2000, Brenda underwent a Cesarean section delivery of her child prior to a total colectomy. Brenda's medical records indicate that prior to the Cesarean delivery of the baby, the perinatologist who evaluated Brenda found indications that the baby appeared to be in distress. 11. [sic] I am of the opinion, which I hold to a reasonable degree of medical probability, that the cause of Brenda Bangs' pregnancy complications which necessitated the preterm delivery of her child and her numerous subsequent surgical procedures, was toxic megacolon secondary to chronic ulcerative colitis, and were in no way preventable by myself. 11. It is further my opinion, to a reasonable degree of medical probability, that no action or inaction on my part caused or contributed to Brenda Bangs' pregnancy complications, need for surgeries related to her ulcerative colitis, or present condition. [¶ 28] Dr. Bossart's affidavit suffers from the same defects present in Dr. Bricca's affidavit. He fails to state the standard of care applicable to colorectal surgeons practicing nationally as well as in the State of Utah in paragraph two and the applicable standard of care for colon problems such as Ms Bangs suffered during her pregnancy in paragraphs four and seven. He fails to state specific facts concerning Ms. Bangs' medical problems and his treatment of those problems; instead, he merely makes categorical assertions and states bald conclusions. He fails to attach the medical records to which he refers and also fails to attach a copy of his curriculum vitae to which he refers. He fails to attach a letter from Dr. Bricca to which he refers in paragraph nine. The district court erred when it did not strike Dr. Bossart's affidavit. [¶ 29] Because the affidavits of Mr. Schroth, Dr. Bricca, and Dr. Bossart were legally insufficient under W.R.C.P. 56(e), Ms. Bangs was entitled to rest upon the allegations contained in her complaint. In the absence of legally sufficient supporting affidavits, the motion for summary judgment must be confined to a decision under W.R.C.P. 12(b)(6), dismissal for failure to state a claim. Greenwood, 741 P.2d at 1086; Landmark, Inc. v. Stockmen's Bank & Trust Co., 680 P.2d 471, 473-75 (Wyo. 1984). Although we are prepared to hold that Ms. Bangs' complaint states causes of action in all counts except the claim of deceit under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 33-5-114, Mr. Schroth contends that, in regard to Ms. Bangs' negligent misrepresentation claim, Mr. Schroth's alleged misrepresentations are non-actionable statements of future intention as recognized in Birt v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc., 2003 WY 102, ¶¶ 47-48, 75 P.3d 640, 657-58 (Wyo. 2003). Because we have struck Mr. Schroth's several legally insufficient affidavits and Ms. Bangs had no obligation to file opposing evidentiary material, the cold record before us is in no condition to support Mr. Schroth's argument on this point. Precisely ascertaining whether a statement is one of present fact or future intention is often a difficult task even on a complete record. Here, the full evidence of the conversations between Ms. Bangs and Mr. Schroth remains to be developed on the record. That record development may well reveal what statements were made by Mr. Schroth and how Ms. Bangs as the recipient reasonably understood them under the circumstances. As the matter presently stands, we feel the better course is to remand on the negligent misrepresentation claim so that full discovery may take place and the record fully developed. [¶ 30] We now turn to Ms. Bangs' claim of deceit under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 33-5-114 and whether it is vulnerable to dismissal under W.R.C.P. 12(b)(6).