Baptist Memorial Hosp. v. Kalyan
This text of 2013 Ark. App. 481 (Baptist Memorial Hosp. v. Kalyan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Cite as 2013 Ark. App. 481
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION II No. CV-12-1105
BAPTIST MEMORIAL HOSPITAL- Opinion Delivered SEPTEMBER 11, 2013 MISSISSIPPI COUNTY, INC. d/b/a BAPTIST MEMORIAL HOSPITAL- APPEAL FROM THE MISSISSIPPI BLYTHEVILLE, and d/b/a BAPTIST COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, MEMORIAL HOSPITAL-OSCEOLA CHICKASAWBA DISTRICT APPELLANTS [NO. CV-03-380]
V. HONORABLE RANDY F. PHILHOURS, JUDGE
MADHU KALYAN, M.D. APPELLEE DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
DAVID M. GLOVER, Judge
This case arises out of a contractual dispute between the parties, Baptist Memorial
Hospital–Mississippi County, Inc. d/b/a Baptist Memorial Hospital–Blytheville, and d/b/a
Baptist Memorial Hospital–Osceola (BMH), appellants, and Dr. Madhu Kalyan, M.D.,
appellee. BMH filed its complaint against Dr. Kalyan on December 1, 2003, alleging breach
of contract and seeking damages. Dr. Kalyan answered the complaint on March 16, 2004,
denying the breach and asserting affirmative defenses. On December 4, 2009, Dr. Kalyan
filed an amended answer and a counterclaim. The counterclaim contained two counts:
Count I alleged that BMH negligently recruited Dr. Kalyan, and Count II alleged
alternatively that BMH misrepresented material facts to Dr. Kalyan while recruiting him, Cite as 2013 Ark. App. 481
both of which he alleged resulted in damages to him. BMH unsuccessfully moved to strike
Dr. Kalyan’s amended answer and counterclaim.
The case was tried by a jury on October 24–26, 2011. The parties stipulated certain
facts and exhibits, including the stipulation that Dr. Kalyan received $228,350.74 from BMH
in connection with the physician agreement and promissory note and that he had not repaid
those amounts. The case was submitted to the jury with a verdict form containing three
interrogatories: 1) Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that Dr. Kalyan
breached the contract with Baptist Memorial Hospital? [Yes]; 2) Do you find from a
preponderance of the evidence that Baptist Memorial Hospital should be estopped from
enforcing the contract against Dr. Kalyan? [No]; and 3) How much are the damages Baptist
Memorial Hospital is entitled to recover from Dr. Kalyan? [$46,478.38]. The jury thus
concluded that Dr. Kalyan breached his agreement with BMH, that BMH was not estopped
from enforcing the contract with Dr. Kalyan, and that Dr. Kalyan owed BMH $46,478.38
in damages.
Even though the case was tried in October 2011, the judgment was not entered until
September 5, 2012. The judgment quotes the verdict form but does not specifically address
the two counts raised in the counterclaim. We have not been provided with any other court
order dismissing the counterclaim, despite BMH’s assertion in its argument that “Dr. Kalyan
dismissed his counterclaim.”
2 Cite as 2013 Ark. App. 481
In between the October 2011 trial and the September 5, 2012 entry of the judgment,
BMH filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.1 The motion was denied on
September 7, 2012, and BMH filed its notice of appeal on October 1, 2012, contending that
the trial court erred in denying its motion for JNOV.
We conclude that the judgment is not final and appealable because Dr. Kalyan’s
counterclaim has not been dismissed in a written order. Ark. R. Civ. P. 54(b)(2). Without
a final and appealable judgment, we are without jurisdiction to hear this appeal.
Consequently, we dismiss the appeal without prejudice.
Dismissed without prejudice.
WOOD and BROWN, JJ., agree.
Philip Hicky, II, Ltd., by: Philip Hicky, II and Jessica J. Trail, for appellants.
Bearden Law Firm, by: Mike Bearden, for appellee.
1 Ark. R. Civ. P. 50(b)(2) provides in pertinent part, “A motion made before entry of judgment shall become effective and be treated as filed on the day after the judgment is entered.”
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2013 Ark. App. 481, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baptist-memorial-hosp-v-kalyan-arkctapp-2013.