Court Opinion

ID: 9514155
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:44:53.902057+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:12.662956
License: Public Domain

VANDE WALLE, Chief Justice,
concurring specially.
[¶ 34] I hesitantly concur in the majority opinion concluding there is sufficient evidence in this record of disputed issues of material fact to preclude deciding this case on a motion for summary judgment. Apparently in response to Nodak Mutual’s motion for summary judgment alleging no evidence of causation, Perius added the names and affidavits of additional expert witnesses whose testimony could well be described as eonclusory. In reading the majority opinion I am left with the impression it is more akin to the issue of whether or not the names of the experts and the affidavits satisfied the requirements of N.D.C.C. § 28-01^16, which in professional medical negligence cases requires the plaintiff to provide an affidavit containing admissible expert opinions to support a prima facie case of professional negligence, than it is to the question of whether or not summary judgment was appropriate. One might ask what are the facts as opposed to the opinion of these witnesses?
[¶ 35] Nevertheless, while I reluctantly agree the inferences which might be drawn from the affidavits are sufficient to avoid deciding this case on a motion for summary judgment, this procedure is not a model to be emulated.
[¶ 36] GERALD W. VANDE WALLE, C.J.