Opinion ID: 2562586
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Malpractice claims against Beach and Hawkins

Text: Hertz argues Beach and Hawkins committed malpractice in two ways: in failing to provide him treatment themselves and in delaying his treatment with Dr. Anderson. The superior court granted summary judgment in favor of Beach and Hawkins because Hertz failed to supply expert testimony to support his claims. [32] Nurses are health care providers under the medical malpractice statutes, including the expert testimony requirements of AS 09.55.540. [33] To show that Beach and Hawkins committed malpractice in failing to treat him themselves, Hertz needed to provide expert evidence showing negligence. He did not. As to his delayed treatment, Hertz does not deny that Hawkins and Beach placed his name on the dental list when he complained of his loose-fitting denture or his decayed tooth. The nurses communicated names and conditions to a dentist, Dr. Anderson, to determine the course and treatment priority for Hertz and other inmates on the list. Hertz acknowledges that Beach alerted a doctor and gave him pain relievers after he informed Beach that his decayed tooth was causing severe pain. Assuming the nurses actually had or exercised the authority to make prioritization recommendations to Dr. Anderson, whether they were negligent in not prioritizing Hertz's dental needs over those of other inmatesa medical judgment is a question the ordinary layperson cannot answer without expert evidence describing the standard of care required of nurses under the circumstances. Hertz supplied no such evidence. We therefore affirm the superior court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the nurses on Hertz's medical malpractice claims.