Opinion ID: 2613418
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Directed Verdict in Favor of Dr. Pockat

Text: Dr. Little argues that the trial court erred by directing a verdict in favor of Dr. Pockat. He contends: [T]here was sufficient evidence to go to the jury on the issue of whether Dr. Pockat breached the standard of care applicable to him by failing to properly diagnose and treat [Kobos]. The cause of action in this case accrued in 1981 while the doctrine of joint and several liability still applied in negligence actions. Dr. Little argues that the trial court's decision to direct a verdict in favor of Dr. Pockat impermissibly foreclosed his right to seek contribution from Dr. Pockat. We cannot review the trial court's decision on this issue. Dr. Little directly challenges the judgment rendered in favor of Dr. Pockat; however, he failed to perfect an appeal regarding this issue. Dr. Little's notice of appeal identified two orders from which he took his appeal: (1) the Judgment on Jury Verdict; and (2) the Order Denying Defendant Little's Motion for a New Trial. Dr. Little did not specify that he was appealing from the Order Dismissing Thomas Pockat, M.D. W.R.A.P. 2.07(a)(2) requires that the notice of appeal must [i]dentify the judgment or appealable order, or designated portion appealed. Although the certificate of service indicated that Dr. Little served the notice of appeal on Dr. Pockat, Dr. Little did not serve Dr. Pockat with copies of his brief or his designation of the record. The rules of appellate procedure require that the appellant serve the opposing parties with copies of his brief and the designation of the record. W.R.A.P. 3.05(b) and 7.06(a). Pursuant to W.R.A.P. 1.03, we may refuse to consider the offending party's contentions on appeal when he fails to comply with the rules of appellate procedure. In First National Bank of Thermopolis v. Bonham, 559 P.2d 42 (Wyo.1977), we held: [A]ll parties in interest must be given an opportunity to be heard before the court will or can proceed to a decision upon the merits of the case. 559 P.2d at 50. Although Bonham was decided before the Wyoming Rules of Appellate Procedure [4] were adopted and was an appeal from an administrative agency decision, the underlying principles apply in this case. See DS v. Department of Public Assistance and Social Services (Parental Rights to X, Y & Z), 607 P.2d 911, 915 (Wyo.1980). Dr. Little states that he is not trying to prosecute this appeal as to Dr. Pockat. He contends that he is only seeking a new trial as between Kobos and himself and that he does not seek to adversely affect Dr. Pockat's rights. Dr. Little suggests the impossible. Dr. Pockat's interests would necessarily be affected by a decision ordering that the directed verdict in his favor was improper. The directed verdict exonerated Dr. Pockat as a matter of law from any negligence in the case. Deciding that the directed verdict was improper would again, at the very least, bring Dr. Pockat's professional reputation into question. Dr. Pockat had no way of knowing that Dr. Little was contesting the trial judge's ruling which directed a verdict in his favor. He was entitled to defend that decision. Because Dr. Pockat's interests were not represented on appeal, we cannot reach the merits of this issue.