BRIAN D. SMITH,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
REBECCA S. ANDERSON, M.D., and
RODNEY G. HEATON, M.D.,
Defendants and Appellees.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District,
In and For the County of Missoula, Cause No. DV-15-271
Honorable John W. Larson, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Brian D. Smith (Self-Represented), Shelby, Montana
For Appellees:
J. Daniel Hoven, Evan M.T. Thompson, Browning, Kaleczyc, Berry
& Hoven, P.C., Helena, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: July 20, 2016
Decided: August 9, 2016
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
Chief Justice Mike McGrath delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court Internal Operating
Rules, this case is decided by memorandum opinion and shall not be cited and does not
serve as precedent. Its case title, cause number, and disposition shall be included in this
Court’s quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana
Reports.
¶2 Brian D. Smith appeals from the District Court’s order filed September 23, 2015,
granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment, granting defendants’ motion for
protective order, and denying plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel. We affirm.
¶3 Smith brought this medical negligence case against the defendant doctors, who
treated him at Community Medical Center in Missoula on April 2, 2011. Defendant
Anderson is certified in internal medicine and defendant Heaton is certified in family
practice. Both work as hospitalists at Community Medical Center. Smith alleged that the
doctors administered inappropriate medications to him, that they did not obtain informed
consent from him, and that they negligently released him from the hospital.
¶4 Montana law has long required that the elements of a medical negligence claim be
supported by expert testimony. Montana Deaconess Hosp. v. Gratton,
(1976). In response to a deadline set by the District Court, Smith
identified forensic psychiatrist Dr. William Stratford as his medical expert. Defendant
doctors moved for summary judgment when they learned that Dr. Stratford had not
evaluated Smith’s claims and had not agreed to appear as an expert. They also contended
2
that Stratford was not an expert in the medical specialties that they practice. Smith
opposed the motion, contending that his claims were easily understood by ordinary
persons and therefore required no expert testimony.
¶5 The District Court determined that Smith’s allegations of medical negligence,
including allegations of inappropriate medication and unwarranted discharge, were not
topics readily understood by lay persons. Therefore, the District Court determined that
expert medical testimony by a practitioner in the appropriate medical field was necessary
to support Smith’s case. Estate of Wilson,
. Since Dr. Stratford knew nothing about Smith’s case and had not agreed to testify
for him, the District Court concluded that Smith did not have the necessary expert to
support his claims and that his complaint should be dismissed as a matter of law. We
agree with the District Court.
¶6 Based upon this disposition of the case, the District Court properly granted the
protective order sought by the defendant doctors and properly denied Smith’s motion for
appointment of counsel.
¶7 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c) of
our Internal Operating Rules, which provides for memorandum opinions. In the opinion
of the Court, this case presents a question controlled by settled law.
¶8 Affirmed.
/S/ MIKE McGRATH
3
We Concur:
/S/ JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA
/S/ LAURIE McKINNON
/S/ BETH BAKER
/S/ JIM RICE
4
