AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The plaintiff, representing the estate of Tawana Lucero, filed a lawsuit against Doctor on Call entities, a prescribing physician, and a pharmacy, alleging that Ms. Lucero's death was due to excessive medication prescribed by a physician employed by Doctor on Call.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that the exclusion of an expert witness due to discovery violations was disproportionate and that summary judgment on claims for negligence per se, medical malpractice, negligent supervision, and vicarious liability was improper.
• Defendants: Contended that the exclusion of the plaintiff's expert witness was justified due to failure to comply with discovery obligations and that summary judgment was appropriate for the plaintiff's claims due to lack of evidence, particularly expert testimony.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court abused its discretion in excluding the plaintiff's expert witness as a sanction for discovery violations.
• Whether summary judgment was properly granted on the plaintiff's claims for negligence per se, medical malpractice, negligent supervision, and vicarious liability.

Disposition

• The district court's decision to exclude the plaintiff's expert witness and grant summary judgment in favor of Doctor on Call was affirmed.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, led by Chief Judge Jennifer L. Attrep, with Judges J. Miles Hanisee and Katherine A. Wray concurring, provided the following reasons:
  Exclusion of Expert Witness: The district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the plaintiff's expert witness due to the plaintiff's failure to comply with an amended scheduling order for discovery. The court considered less drastic alternatives before imposing the sanction, which was deemed proportional to the offense (paras 3-8).
  Negligence Per Se: The regulation cited by the plaintiff applies to individual practitioners, not entities like Doctor on Call. Therefore, the plaintiff could not establish negligence per se against Doctor on Call based on this regulation (paras 11-15).
  Medical Malpractice and Negligent Supervision: The district court properly granted summary judgment on these claims due to the absence of expert testimony, which was necessary to establish the standard of care and causation. The plaintiff's remaining expert could not fill this gap, and the plaintiff's arguments that no expert was needed were not persuasive (paras 17-21).
  Vicarious Liability: The district court correctly granted summary judgment on the vicarious liability claim because the plaintiff's settlement with the prescribing physician, who was the agent in the respondeat superior relationship, effectively released Doctor on Call from vicarious liability. The plaintiff's arguments for applying other theories of vicarious liability were not supported by the facts or the law (paras 22-26).