Montana Supreme Court

Ann M. Brookins, as an Individual and Ann M. Brookins, as Natural Parent and Legal Guardian on Behalf of Allen…

December 11, 2012367 Mont. 193

Summary

The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s orders reopening discovery and granting summary judgment on all of Ann Brookins’s claims, finding no error in the court’s exercise of discretion, the lack of agency or joint‑venture relationships, the inapplicability of the Consumer Protection Act, and the requirement of expert testimony for a negligent‑credentialing claim.

Holding

  • Did the District Court err in reopening discovery?. The District Court did not err; its reopening of discovery was within its inherent discretion and was justified by the presence of excusable neglect and good cause.
  • Did the District Court err in granting summary judgment to the Hospital on the agency claims?. The District Court did not err; there was no actual or ostensible agency relationship between Dr. Mote and the Hospital.
  • Did the District Court err in granting summary judgment to the Hospital on the joint venture claim?. The District Court did not err; the facts did not satisfy the joint‑venture element of equal control.
  • Did the District Court err in granting summary judgment to the Hospital on the Consumer Protection Act claim?. The District Court did not err; the CPA does not apply to the Hospital’s credentialing activities because they are not entrepreneurial or commercial aspects of its business.
  • Did the District Court err in granting summary judgment to the Hospital on the negligent credentialing claim?. The District Court did not err; expert testimony was required to establish a breach of the standard of care, and the plaintiff failed to provide such testimony.

Docket DA 12-0046

Cited authorities

  • Rule 16(b)(4)
  • Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4)

Cited by

Read full opinionPDF