Eisenmenger v. Ethicon, Inc.

871 P.2d 1313, 264 Mont. 393, 51 State Rptr. 296, 1994 Mont. LEXIS 75

• Court: Montana Supreme Court
• Decided: March 24, 1994
• Docket: 93-034
• Status: Published

Opinions

CHIEF JUSTICE TURNAGE

delivered the Opinion of the Court.

Helen Eisenmenger suffered serious injury after undergoing surgery in which suture material manufactured by defendant Ethicon, Inc., was used. She filed this product liability claim against Ethicon in the District Court for the Eighth Judicial District, Cascade County. Ethicon appeals a $2.3 million judgment entered against it. We affirm.

We restate the dispositive issues as:

1. Whether the District Court erred in holding that the statute of limitations for Eisenmenger’s product liability claim against Ethicon was tolled by § 27-6-702, MCA.

2. Whether the court erred in denying Ethicon’s motion for summary judgment.

3. Whether the court erred in imposing a default sanction against Ethicon on the issue of liability.

On October 30,1985, Helen Eisenmenger underwent a left carotid endarterectomy at the Montana Deaconess Medical Center (the hospital) in Great Falls, Montana. James E. Mungas, M.D., performed the surgery. The incision in Eisenmenger’s left carotid artery was closed using 6-0 Prolene suture material manufactured and sold by Ethicon.

Two days later, while she was resting in her hospital room, Eisenmenger suddenly experienced bleeding in and from the surgical site. She was returned to the operating room, where Dr. Mungas performed a second, emergency surgery to repair a broken suture in the carotid artery incision. After the second operation, Eisenmenger suffered a stroke and resulting serious complications. There was little doubt that the broken suture caused Eisenmenger’s stroke and subsequent complications; the question was what caused the suture to break.

In January 1988, Eisenmenger, through her guardian and conservator, filed a product liability suit against Ethicon in the District Court for Montana’s Eighth Judicial District. Ethicon removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. That case was eventually voluntarily dismissed, after this action was filed.

On October 27,1988, again through her guardian and conservator, Eisenmenger filed a malpractice claim with the Montana Medical Legal Panel against Dr. Mungas and the hospital. She named Ethicon as an “other necessary and proper part[y]” to that claim. After the panel rendered its decision, Eisenmenger filed this action on March 30, 1989.

Ethicon promptly moved for summary judgment, arguing that the general three-year tort statute of limitations on the claim against it had run. The court denied Ethicon’s motion, holding that § 27-6-702, MCA, tolled the statute of limitations during the Medical Legal Panel’s decision-making process and for thirty days thereafter.

Almost three years later, in February 1992, the court entered summary judgment in favor of Dr. Mungas and the hospital, holding that the theory of res ipsa loquitur was not applicable to the claims against those defendants and that Eisenmenger had produced no evidence of negligence by those defendants. At the same time, the court denied Ethicon’s motion for summary judgment on grounds that it would be premature to rule out the admissibility of circumstantial evidence offered by Eisenmenger to show that there had been a manufacturing defect in the suture.

At the end of March 1992, Eisenmenger deposed Ethicon’s witness Dr. Olcott, a professor of surgery at Stanford University. Dr. Olcott’s opinions, as stated in his deposition, clearly supported a theory that conduct of Dr. Mungas or the hospital could have been the cause of the suture breakage leading to Eisenmenger’s injuries. Ten days later, Eisenmenger filed a motion asking the court to assess sanctions against Ethicon for failure to disclose Dr. Olcott’s opinions in response to discovery requests dating back to 1988.

In its order granting Eisenmenger’s motion, the court stated that Ethicon had made a “knowing concealment” of Dr. Olcott’s testimony, and that, had the court known of Dr. Olcott’s testimony it was “very doubtful” that Dr. Mungas’s motion for summary judgment would have been granted. The court concluded Eisenmenger had suffered extreme prejudice due to Ethicon’s discovery abuses and that she was entitled to sanctions. It entered a default judgment against Ethicon on the issue of liability.

The case was tried to a jury for purposes of determining the amount of damages. Following the jury’s verdict that Eisenmenger’s damages totaled $2,308,155, Ethicon appeals. Eisenmenger and Dr. Mungas have each raised issues on cross-appeal but, as a result of our resolution of the issues raised by Ethicon, we do not reach those issues.

ISSUE 1

Whether the District Court erred in holding that the statute of limitations for Eisenmenger’s product liability claim against Ethicon was tolled by § 27-6-702, MCA.

Section 27-6-702, MCA, which is part of the Montana Medical Legal Panel Act (Act), provides:

The running of the applicable limitation period in a malpractice claim is tolled upon receipt by the director of the application for review as to all health care providers named in the application as parties to the panel proceeding and as to all other persons or entities named in the application as necessary or proper parties for any court action which might subsequently arise out of the same factual circumstances set forth in the application.

Ethicon contends § 27-6-702, MCA, tolls the statute of limitations in malpractice claims only, and not in product liability claims such as this one.

Ethicon’s position reflects the reference, at the beginning of the statute, to “a malpractice claim.” “Malpractice claim” is defined at § 27-6-103(5), MCA, as a claim or potential claim “against a health care provider.” “Health care provider” is defined under § 27-6-103(3), MCA, to mean a physician, a dentist, or a health care facility.

Because “malpractice claim” is defined as a claim against a “health care provider,” the statement in § 27-6-702, MCA, that the statute of limitations is tolled as to “all health care providers named in the application” addresses most “malpractice claims” as defined in the Act. The only exception initially appears to be malpractice claims against health care providers not named in the application. However, § 27-6-702, MCA, further provides that the tolling applies also “as to all other persons or entities named ... as necessary or proper parties for any court action ... out of the same factual circumstances.” We conclude that § 27-6-702, MCA, is ambiguous about the types of claims for which it tolls the statute of limitations.

If the plain words of a statute are ambiguous, the next step in judicial interpretation of the statute is to determine the intent of the legislature. Montana Contractors’ Ass’n. v. Dept. of Hwys. (1986), 220 Mont. 392, 394, 715 P.2d 1056, 1058. This is accomplished by examining the legislative history of the statute, including the title of the original bill. Montana Contractors’ Ass’n., 715 P.2d at 1058; Gaub v. Milbank Ins. Co. (1986), 220 Mont. 424, 428, 715 P.2d 443, 445.

Section 27-6-702, MCA (1983), read:

The running of the applicable limitation period in a malpractice claim is tolled upon receipt by the director of the application for review and does not begin again until 30 days after the panel’s final decision is entered in the permanent files of the panel and a copy is served upon the complainant and his attorney by certified mail.

(Enacted 17-1314 by Sec. 14, Ch. 449, L. 1977.) The 1985 amendment to § 27-6-702, MCA, added the following language to the first sentence of the statute:

as to all health care providers named in the application as parties to the panel proceeding and as to all other persons or entities named in the application as necessary or proper parties for any court action which might subsequently arise out of the same factual circumstances set forth in the application. [Emphasis added.]

The 1985 amendment to § 27-6-702, MCA, unquestionably created the ambiguity with which we are faced.

The title to the 1985 amending act and the explanation offered with the proposed amendment to § 27-6-702, MCA, are instructive. The title to the amending act stated:

AN ACT REVISING THE MONTANA MEDICAL LEGAL PANEL ACT BY CLARIFYING THE DEFINITIONS OF “HEALTH CARE FACILITY,” “MALPRACTICE CLAIM,” AND “PHYSICIAN;” CLARIFYING THE ALLOCATION OF ASSESSMENTS AND DETERMINATION OF ASSESSMENTS; PROVIDING FOR ALATE FEE FOR DELINQUENT ASSESSMENTS; CLARIFYING THE COMPOSITION OF THE PANEL; CLARIFYING THE TOLLING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS AGAINST PARTIES NOT PARTIES TO THE CLAIM AND PROVIDING FOR DISMISSAL OF CLAIMS AND THE RUNNING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS; AMENDING SECTIONS 27-6-103,27-6-206,27-6-301, 27-6-303, 27-6-401, AND 27-6-702, MCA; AND PROVIDING AN IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVE DATE. [Emphasis supplied.]

Ch. 332, L. 1985. The explanation offered by the Montana Medical Legal Panel for the proposed amendment was:

The current statute is unclear as to whether the statute does or does not toll as to those not parties to the panel, such as nurses, under circumstances where physicians in the same matter are brought before the panel. The proposed legislation clarifies this, providing for the tolling of the statute as to all those parties named in the application, whether proper health care providers before the panel or not.

Exhibit D to minutes of House Judiciary Committee, February 19, 1985.

The legislative history of § 27-6-702, MCA, supports the conclusion that the tolling provision applies not only to malpractice claims, as argued by Ethicon, but also to actions against all other persons or entities named in the application as necessary or proper parties for any court action arising out of the same facts. This conclusion is further supported by the rule that an ambiguous statute of limitations should be interpreted, in the interest of justice, to allow the longer period in which to prosecute the action. See James v. Buck (1986), 111 Idaho 708, 727 P.2d 1136, 1138 (citing cases from Alaska, Hawaii, Arizona, and Utah). We note that Ethicon has long had notice of its alleged liability in this action, minimizing any surprise or prejudice to it from the interpretation we now give to § 27-6-702, MCA.

In this case, the application for review of claim which Eisenmenger filed with the Montana Medical Legal Panel listed Ethicon as an “other necessary and proper partly].” We hold that the District Court did not err in ruling that the statute of limitations was tolled as against Ethicon.

ISSUE 2

Whether the court erred in denying Ethicon’s motion for summary judgment.

This Court’s standard of review of a ruling on a motion for summary judgment is the same as a district court’s standard in ruling on such a motion: whether the record discloses genuine issues of material fact, and, if not, whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Rule 56(c), M.R.Civ.P.; Knight v. City of Missoula (1992), 252 Mont. 232, 243, 827 P.2d 1270, 1276.

Ethicon contends that Eisenmenger and the District Court improperly relied on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur in opposing and denying its motion for summary judgment. Ethicon correctly states that the theory of res ipsa loquitur is not applicable in products liability cases under a strict liability theory. Rix v. General Motors Corp. (1986), 222 Mont. 318, 332, 723 P.2d 195, 204. But neither the District Court nor Eisenmenger relied solely on that theory. They also relied upon a theory of strict liability.

Eisenmenger admits that, at the time Ethicon moved for summary judgment, she had no direct evidence that the suture which broke was defective. However, she maintains she had sufficient circumstantial evidence that the suture was defective to preclude summary judgment. A claim of product defect may be proven by circumstantial evidence. Brandenburger v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. (1973), 162 Mont. 506, 517, 513 P.2d 268, 274.

The broken suture was thrown away during Eisenmenger’s second surgery. As pointed out in Eisenmenger’s brief opposing Ethicon’s motion for summary judgment, the only direct evidence concerning the break in this suture was Dr. Mungas’s deposition testimony that the suture broke at its midpoint, or between the knots. Eisenmenger cites evidence it produced that, if stress is applied to a nondefective suture, the suture will break at the knot, rather than between the knots. Thus, Eisenmenger argues, the testimony of Dr. Mungas was evidence that the suture was either defective or mishandled. All of the persons assisting with the surgery denied having observed or done anything that damaged or otherwise compromised the suture. No direct evidence was produced to contradict their testimony, and their credibility on this issue is a question of fact.

Eisenmenger also points to circumstantial evidence she marshalled concerning other incidents of failure of Ethicon’s Prolene 6-0 suture material. Ethicon argues that this evidence is inadmissible. However, in denying Ethicon’s motion for summary judgment, the District Court stated that it had not yet determined whether all of the evidence of other incidents of suture failure would be admissible. All reasonable inferences from the offered proof are to be drawn in favor of the party opposing summary judgment. Reaves v. Reinbold (1980), 189 Mont. 284, 287, 615 P.2d 896, 898.

We hold that the court did not err in ruling that Eisenmenger demonstrated issues of material fact precluding the entry of summary judgment in favor of Ethicon.

ISSUE 3

Whether the court erred in imposing a default sanction against Ethicon on the issue of liability.

Eisenmenger’s motion for sanctions was made under Rule 37(d), M.R.Civ.P, which authorizes a district court to award sanctions:

if a party ... fails (1) to appear before the officer who is to take the deposition, after being served with a proper notice, or (2) to serve answers or objections to interrogatories submitted under Rule 33, after proper service of the interrogatories, or (3) to serve a written response to a request for inspection submitted under Rule 34, after proper service of the request^]

Ethicon urges that subsection (d) would apply only if it had failed completely to answer interrogatories. In support of its position, it cites several cases decided under Rule 37(b), Fed.R.Civ.P. The value of those cases as precedent is distinctly limited because they were decided under a different subsection of the federal, not the state, rule.

In Vehrs v. Piquette (1984), 210 Mont. 386, 684 P.2d 476, this Court affirmed Rule 37(d) sanctions for unsigned, late, not-fully-responsive answers to interrogatories. Therefore, a complete failure to answer interrogatories or otherwise respond to discovery requests is not required before sanctions are allowed under Rule 37(d), M.R.Civ.P. We conclude the District Court had the power to award sanctions in this case. We next examine whether the sanction of default judgment was justified.

In Audit Services v. Kraus Construction, Inc. (1980), 189 Mont. 94, 615 P.2d 183, this Court quoted with approval and applied the following standard for entering a default judgment as a sanction under Rule 37, M.R.Civ.P.:

[T]he default judgment must normally be viewed as available only when the adversary process has been halted because of an essentially unresponsive party. In that instance, the diligent party must be protected lest he be faced with interminable delay and continued uncertainty as to his rights. The default judgment remedy serves as such a protection. Furthermore, the possibility of a default is a deterrent to those parties who choose delay as part of their litigative strategy[.][Citation omitted.]

Audit Services, 615 P.2d at 187-88. Ethicon cites Audit Services as authority that default judgment is proper only when there has been a complete failure to respond to discovery requests. But the last sentence quoted above supports a broader interpretation allowing default judgment as a sanction for other severe and deliberate discovery abuse.

Our standard of review of sanctions imposed for discovery abuses is whether the district court abused its discretion. First Bank (N.A.) — Billings v. Heidema (1986), 219 Mont. 373, 711 P.2d 1384. In discussing the district courts’ ability to decide when sanctions are appropriate and how severe those sanctions should be, this Court has said:

This Court has addressed the imposition of Rule 37, M.R.Civ.P, sanctions several times in the recent past. The primary thread binding each of those decisions is the deference this Court gives to the decision of the trial judges. ... The trial judge is in the best position to know ... which parties callously disregard the rights of their opponents and other litigants seeking their day in court. The trial judge is also in the best position to determine which sanction is the most appropriate.

Dassori v. Ray Stanley Chevrolet Co. (1986), 224 Mont. 178, 179-80, 728 P.2d 430, 431.

In his March 1992 deposition, Dr. Olcott testified concerning eight problems he saw with the Eisenmenger case: (1) that Dr. Mungas used a “substandard technique” of tying the suture; (2 and 3) that there was no indication for the first surgery performed, either by symptoms or the results of the arteriogram; (4) the arteriogram and the operation should not have both been done on the same day; (5) in the second operation, Heparin was wrongly given after, not before, clamps were applied; (6) in the second operation, the arteriotomy was not completely reopened; (7) a patch was not used in redoing the arteriotomy; and (8) there was inappropriate monitoring during and following the second surgery. Dr. Olcott testified he was given the Eisenmenger case for review sometime in 1988 and that he advised Ethicon’s counsel, “in general,” of his opinions on these eight problems “in 1988.”

In June 1990, by which date Dr. Olcott clearly had informed Ethicon’s counsel of his opinion, Ethicon answered detailed discovery requests by Eisenmenger. Ethicon’s answers were described by the District Court in its sanction order as “incomplete and evasive.” Ethicon objected to an interrogatory about whether it took the position that Dr. Mungas failed to take the necessary precautions in using the suture, on grounds that the term “necessary precautions” was undefined. Ethicon stated that it was “unable to respond” to interrogatories about whether it contended that Dr. Mungas improperly tied the suture or that any act or omission of Dr. Mungas or an employee of the hospital caused or contributed to Eisenmenger’s stroke. Ethicon further stated that it was “unable to comment on the specifics of Dr. Mungas’ handling of the suture and the role of that handling in explaining the suture failure.”

In answer to an interrogatory asking it to set forth “each factor which you contend substantially contributed” to Eisenmenger’s postoperative stroke, Ethicon responded:

Many factors may contribute including age, history, smoking, general physical condition, wound dehiscence, and post-operative complications among many other possible factors. Ethicon intends to examine these as well as all other possibilities and may, depending on the outcome, offer expert medical opinion on this subject.

Dr. Olcott’s name was first disclosed as a potential expert witness who might be called at trial on August 30,1991. On December 9,1991, Ethicon and its attorney made the following discovery responses:

Interrogatory No. 1: Is it your contention that Defendant James E. Mungas caused or contributed to the injuries or damages allegedly suffered or sustained by the Plaintiff, as more fully described in her Complaint? If so, please set forth with particularity and in detail:

(a) each and every fact supporting this contention;

(b) the identity of any and all persons who could or would testify as to the truthfulness of this contention; and

(c) the identity of all writings, notes, letter, records, or any other document which could or would support the truthfulness of this contention.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1: (a) Based on its investigation of the postoperative dehiscence experienced by plaintiff following her surgery in October 1985, Ethicon contends that such dehiscence was not due to any inherent property of PROLENE* suture material or to Ethicon’s manufacturing procedures or labeling information, but rather to inadvertent suture damage or mishandling during its use, the precise nature of which is unavoidably unknown to Ethicon, by one of the individuals present in the operating room at the time of surgery, or to the surgical technique employed by one of those same individuals. Ethicon exercised no control over the suture after it left Ethicon’s facility. Ethicon was not present during the time the suture was received, stored and handled by personnel from MDMC prior to its use during the surgery in question. Ethicon was not present in the operating room either during the initial operative procedure or the arteriotomy repair, when the suture was handled by operating room personnel, including Dr. Mungas, on multiple occasions and came into contact with a variety of surgical instruments. Because the suture utilized in the initial closure of the arteriotomy was thrown away by Mr. [sic] Mungas, MDMC employees or other operating room personnel, Ethicon was deprived of the opportunity to examine this crucial piece of evidence, from which the cause of the dehiscence could be obtained. Moreover, because Dr. Mungas, MDMC employees or other operating room personnel did not keep track of the lot number from which the suture in question came, Ethicon was further deprived of the opportunity to demonstrate that such lot in particular met with Ethicon’s manufacturing and quality control/quality assurance specifications in every respect. Thus, although Dr. Mungas was among those present in the operating room whose suture handling or surgical technique may have inadvertently caused or contributed to plaintiff’s damages, or who, directly or indirectly, may have inadvertently mishandled, misused, altered or otherwise changed the suture material in question, Ethicon cannot say that Dr. Mungas was the sole individual responsible for the dehiscence. Nevertheless, no PROLENE* 6/0 suture material returned to Ethicon following an alleged postoperative dehiscence has failed to meet USP or Ethicon specifications, and Ethicon is of the opinion that the suture in this case was within USP and Ethicon specifications and has no present information or evidence to the contrary.

(b) All the individuals disclosed in the medical records or known to plaintiff and to Ethicon’s co-defendants as well as those individuals disclosed in Ethicon’s responses to the parties’ discovery requests and/or the depositions of Ethicon’s employees in this case.

(c) All written information produced or discovered in this case by all parties or available to the parties in the medical and scientific literature.

On the same date, Ethicon answered an interrogatory requesting information concerning the substance of and supporting facts for any expert opinions concerning mishandling, misuse, or alteration of the suture material by Dr. Mungas. In its response, Ethicon merely referred to the above answer and to its expert witness disclosure, which set forth only the names of the experts. It provided no further information.

Summary judgment was entered in favor of Dr. Mungas and the hospital some six months after Ethicon disclosed Dr. Olcott as an expert witness. During those months, Ethicon did not update its discovery responses to disclose Dr. Olcott’s opinions, despite its clear duty to do so under Rule 26(e), M.R.Civ.P. Dr. Olcott was not made available to be deposed until a month after Dr. Mungas and the hospital had been dismissed from this lawsuit. By that time, severe prejudice had already occurred to Eisenmenger, and the court had few options for appropriate and meaningful sanctions against Ethicon. As the court stated, it was “very doubtful” that Dr. Mungas’s motion for summary judgment would have been made or granted if Dr. Olcott’s opinion had been disclosed. Ethicon’s discovery abuses therefore directly interfered with a correct decision in the case.

Ethicon also argues that the evidence it withheld only inculpated Dr. Mungas, and that withholding the evidence did not prejudice Eisenmenger’s case against Ethicon. However, as the District Court recognized and Ethicon admits, Ethicon would, if allowed, seek to use the concealed evidence at trial as relevant to causation. The concealed evidence clearly went to the heart of Ethicon’s defense to Eisenmenger’s claim.

This is not a situation where the “wrong” questions were asked in discovery and the critical answers were thereafter artfully avoided. There was nothing more which could have been asked in order to elicit from Ethicon the substance of Dr. Olcott’s opinion. We conclude that the above answers to interrogatories and the failure to supplement the same demonstrate intolerable gamesmanship and obstructiveness on the part of Ethicon. Playing loose and fast with the rules of discovery, in the guise of advocacy, is equivalent to playing Russian roulette with only one chamber empty — it cannot be relied upon to lead to a favorable result.

The record supports the District Court’s finding that Ethicon’s failure to respond to discovery requests was willful and in bad faith. This failure caused severe prejudice to Eisenmenger on an issue central to the case. We hold that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the sanction of default judgment on the issue of liability.

Finally, Ethicon contends it was deprived of its right to due process through entry of the default judgment as a sanction. It argues that Securities and Exchange Commission v. Seaboard Corp. (9th Cir. 1982), 666 F.2d 414, establishes that due process allows a sanction of default judgment only in response to a complete failure to produce requested evidence. We disagree. The basis for the holding in Seaboard was that the sanction in that case was imposed for failure to obey a court order to pay a fine arising out of discovery violations. The discovery requests had been complied with by the time sanctions were imposed. Seaboard, 666 F.2d at 417. In contrast, Ethicon never fairly answered the discovery requests at issue here.

Ethicon also claims due process requires that default judgment as a sanction for discovery abuse is only proper if the refusal to respond to discovery requests gives rise to a presumption that the party had no evidence on the point in question, citing Hammond Packing Co. v. Arkansas (1909), 212 U.S. 322, 29 S.Ct. 370, 53 L.Ed. 530. Hammond does not establish such a blanket rule. The holding therein that the creation of such a presumption meets the requirements of due process is not equivalent to a holding that the creation of such a presumption is required for purposes of due process.

Due process requires that default may not be imposed absent willfulness, bad faith, or fault. Societe Internationale v. Rogers (1958), 357 U.S. 197, 212, 78 S.Ct. 1087, 1096, 2 L.Ed.2d 1255, 1267. Here, as stated above, the court found that Ethicon’s actions in giving evasive and incomplete answers to discovery requests and in failing to supplement those answers “have been willful and in bad faith.” In this case, the sanction of default judgment enforces due process by preventing Ethicon from profiting by its discovery abuse and by assuring due process to the opposing parties whose rights have been prejudiced. We hold that Ethicon’s due process rights were not violated when the court ordered a sanction of default judgment on the issue of liability.

Affirmed.

JUSTICES HARRISON, TRIEWEILER, HUNT and WEBER concur.