Recent Developments - Arkansas Law Review

More documents

Recommendations

Info

(16) RECENT DEVELOPMENTS.DOC 4/23/2010 3:08:33 PM 458 ARKANSAS LAW REVIEW [Vol. 63:449 Civil Justice Reform Act of 2003—Medical Malpractice Venue Provisions Held Constitutional Clark v. Johnson Regional Medical Center, 2010 Ark. 115, __ S.W.3d __ (March 11, 2010). Clark v. Johnson Regional Medical Center, 2010 Ark. 114, __ S.W.3d __ (March 11, 2010). In these companion cases, the Arkansas Supreme Court upheld the medical-malpractice venue provisions of the Civil Justice Reform Act of 2003 (the CJRA) against a separation-ofpowers challenge under amendment 80 to the Arkansas Constitution. 3 The plaintiff here had filed the same case in two separate counties, and each circuit court dismissed those defendants for whom venue was not proper in that county. The Arkansas Supreme Court held that the trial courts had properly applied the relevant venue statutes and that these statutory provisions were constitutional. Accordingly, it affirmed the lower courts. On February 3, 2006, Mary Clark underwent back surgery at Sparks Medical Center in Sebastian County, Arkansas. Clark’s surgeon there was Dr. Arthur Johnson, and, during surgery, Clark suffered a dural tear to her left side. After being discharged, Clark continued to see Johnson at his clinic, Orthopaedics, P.A., also in Sebastian County. She was also receiving physical therapy for the surgical wound at Johnson Regional Medical Center (JRMC), in Johnson County, Arkansas. On March 8, 2006, staff at JRMC determined that Clark’s wound had become infected. Between August and December of 2006, Clark made several trips to the emergency room at JRMC, where she complained of weakness and nausea, and received treatment from three different doctors. On December 1, 2006, one of these doctors, Dr. John Dunham, 3. The court’s main opinion, and the primary source of this discussion, is Clark v. Johnson Regional Medical Center, 2010 Ark. 115, __ S.W.3d __. Both cases had the same parties, and Clark raised the same arguments in both cases on appeal.
(16) RECENT DEVELOPMENTS.DOC 4/23/2010 3:08:33 PM 2010] RECENT DEVELOPMENTS 459 found that the surgical wound had begun to bulge and was draining. He released her with instructions to see her original surgeon within the week, but Clark returned to the JRMC emergency room the next day. Discovering that the wound was severely abscessed, Dr. Dunham had Clark transferred back to Sparks. There, doctors discovered that the infection had spread to some hardware installed in her back, necessitating the removal of that hardware. On November 26, 2007, Clark filed identical medicalmalpractice suits against each of the doctors, hospitals, and clinics that had treated her in both Johnson and Sebastian Counties. In each case, the defendants that had not treated Clark in that county made a motion to dismiss based on Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) and section 16-55-213(e) of the Arkansas Code, the medical-malpractice venue provision of the CJRA, arguing that venue was improper in that county. Both circuit courts dismissed the claims against those defendants that did not practice in its county, i.e., the Johnson County Court dismissed the Sebastian County defendants and the Sebastian court dismissed the Johnson defendants. Clark appealed the decisions of both trial courts, producing these two opinions. On appeal, Clark raised two arguments. First, Clark argued that the courts should not have applied the CJRA’s medicalmalpractice venue provision to her claim. Second, she argued in the alternative that the venue statute was unconstitutional. The Arkansas Supreme Court rejected both arguments, affirming the trial courts. As to the application of this provision, Clark argued that the provision only applies when a medical injury occurred in a single county and involved only a single medical provider. Clark, on the other hand, had alleged that the negligence of multiple providers in multiple counties had caused her injuries. Accordingly, she argued, the provision could not apply to her claim. The Arkansas Supreme Court began by looking at the plain language of the statute. The CJRA’s venue provision provides in part: (a) All civil actions other than those mentioned in §§ 16- 60-101–16-60-103, 16-60-107, 16-60-114, and 16-60-115, and subsection (e) of this section must be brought in any of
Page 1 and 2: (16) RECENT DEVELOPMENTS.DOC 4/23/2
Page 9: (16) RECENT DEVELOPMENTS.DOC 4/23/2
Page 17: (16) RECENT DEVELOPMENTS.DOC 4/23/2

Recent Developments - Arkansas Law Review

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?