Kruse v. Farid

835 S.E.2d 163

Misty KRUSE, Petitioner

v.Touraj FARID, M.D., Respondent

No. 18-0464

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Submitted: October 2, 2019

Filed: November 8, 2019

Timothy P. Lupardus, Lupardus Law Office, Pineville, West Virginia, Attorney for the Petitioner

Richard D. Jones, Amy R. Humphreys, Shereen C. McDaniel, Flaherty Sensabaugh Bonasso PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, Attorneys for the Respondent

Jenkins, Justice:

The petitioner herein and plaintiff below, Misty Kruse ("Ms. Kruse"), appeals from the April 24, 2018 order entered by the Circuit Court of Raleigh County. By that order, the circuit court granted the summary judgment motion of the respondent herein and defendant below, Touraj Farid, M.D. ("Dr. Farid"), finding that Dr. Farid did not have a duty to provide follow-up medical care after Ms. Kruse left Raleigh General Hospital against medical advice ("AMA"). On appeal to this Court, Ms. Kruse assigns error to the circuit court's ruling. Upon a review of the parties' arguments and briefs, the appendix record and addendum thereto, and the pertinent authorities, we conclude that the circuit court did not err by granting summary judgment to Dr. Farid in this case. Accordingly, we affirm the April 24, 2018 order of the Raleigh County Circuit Court.

I.FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The facts giving rise to the instant appeal began in July 2009 when Ms. Kruse had her gallbladder removed at Raleigh General Hospital. After being discharged, Ms. Kruse returned to Raleigh General Hospital a few days later, and Dr. Farid performed an endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, during which procedure he inserted temporary stents into Ms. Kruse's common bile duct and pancreatic duct. The day after the surgery, Ms. Kruse left the hospital AMA, at which time she signed and dated a form entitled "Leaving the Hospital Against Medical Advice," which provided that

I, Kruse, Misty, a patient in Raleigh General Hospital of Beckley have determined that I am leaving the hospital and I acknowledge and understand this action of so leaving the hospital is against the advice of the attending physician and of hospital authorities.

I further acknowledge that I have been informed of the possible dangers and risks to my health and the health of others by my so leaving the hospital at this time, and I have been given full explanation of the consequences of my leaving the hospital and I do not wish any further explanation.

I assume the risk and accept the consequences of my departure from Raleigh General Hospital at the time and hereby release all health care providers, including the hospital and its staff, from all liability and responsibility for the ill effects that may result to myself, my family and to others resulting from this discontinuance of treatment in the hospital.

I have read and fully understand this document, and understand the risk and benefits of leaving Against Medical Advice.

Ms. Kruse signed and dated this document on July 19, 2009, immediately before she left the hospital. The nurses who witnessed her signature indicated that she did not appear to be intoxicated or confused and that they had informed the appropriate person of Ms. Kruse's departure. Although Ms. Kruse signed the form indicating that she understood that she was leaving the hospital AMA, she now claims that she believed that she was being discharged and did not appreciate that she was leaving AMA. Additionally, while the stents that Dr. Farid inserted were intended to be removed within several weeks or a few months of their insertion, Dr. Farid did not inform Ms. Kruse that they needed to be removed; as to this point, Dr. Farid stated that his customary practice is to inform stent patients that the stents would need to be removed and to schedule a follow-up appointment for that purpose, but that Ms. Kruse had already left the hospital AMA when he went to speak with her. Moreover, Ms. Kruse did not, on her own, follow up with Dr. Farid regarding the removal of her stents.

In December 2013, Ms. Kruse was admitted to Charleston Area Medical Center in acute distress. Following evaluation, the cause of Ms. Kruse's symptoms was determined to be blockages of her two stents, which had never been removed. Ms. Kruse was diagnosed with an infection of the biliary tree, ascending cholangitis, and sepsis, and required stent removal, a ventilator, and intensive antibiotic treatment to recover.

Thereafter, Ms. Kruse served Dr. Farid with a pre-suit Notice of Claim and Screening Certificate of Merit as required by the West Virginia Medical Professional Liability Act ("MPLA"), W. Va. Code §§ 55-7B-1 to - 12 (LexisNexis 2016 & Supp. 2019), and filed the underlying complaint alleging that Dr. Farid had violated the standard of care and had negligently failed to inform her of the need to remove the stents he had inserted and failed to provide follow-up medical care. In this regard, Ms. Kruse's complaint alleged that

Defendant [Dr. Farid] violated the standard of care and was negligent in not informing Misty Kruse of the importance of removal of the biliary stent, and failing to inform her that plastic biliary stents are not long-term, implantable devices. Dr. Touraj Farid further violated the standard of care because no follow-up arrangements were made to remove the biliary and pancreatic duct stents. ...

Dr. Farid responded by stating that Ms. Kruse's departure from the hospital AMA effectively terminated the doctor-patient relationship and, by leaving AMA and signing the above-referenced form, she had released Dr. Farid from liability for any "ill effects" resulting from her departure. Dr. Farid additionally moved for summary judgment, which motion the circuit court granted by order entered April 24, 2018. In rendering its ruling, the circuit court determined that "the patient/doctor relationship between Plaintiff [Ms. Kruse] and Defendant [Dr. Farid], as well as the relationship between the facility [Raleigh General Hospital] and patient [Ms. Kruse], effectively ended the day that the Plaintiff [Ms. Kruse] left the hospital against medical advice." The court additionally ruled that "[m]edical professionals cannot force patients, especially patients who have the cognitive ability to make independent decisions, to accept medical care if they do not want to participate in that care." Finally, the court concluded that

if the patient/doctor relationship ended in this case when the Plaintiff [Ms. Kruse] signed herself out of the hospital against medical advice, then any duty that the Defendant [Dr. Farid] owed the Plaintiff [Ms. Kruse], to provide follow up care, also ended when the Plaintiff [Ms. Kruse] made that decision to leave the hospital against medical advice.

From this decision, Ms. Kruse appeals to this Court.

II.STANDARD OF REVIEW

The instant proceeding is before this Court on appeal from the circuit court's order granting summary judgment to Dr. Farid. Rule 56(c) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure directs that a motion for summary judgment should be granted "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Accord Syl. pt. 3, Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Fed. Ins. Co. of N.Y. , 148 W. Va. 160, 133 S.E.2d 770 (1963) ("A motion for summary judgment should be granted only when it is clear that there is no genuine issue of fact to be tried and inquiry concerning the facts is not desirable to clarify the application of the law."). Thus,

[s]ummary judgment is appropriate where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, such as where the nonmoving party has failed to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of the case that it has the burden to prove.

Syl. pt. 4, Painter v. Peavy , 192 W. Va. 189, 451 S.E.2d 755 (1994). Accord Syl. pt. 2, Williams v. Precision Coil, Inc. , 194 W. Va. 52, 459 S.E.2d 329 (1995) ("Summary judgment is appropriate if, from the totality of the evidence presented, the record could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, such as where the nonmoving party has failed to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of the case that it has the burden to prove."). Finally, we review anew a circuit court's summary judgment ruling: "[a] circuit court's entry of summary judgment is reviewed de novo ." Syl. pt. 1, Painter , 192 W. Va. 189, 451 S.E.2d 755. In light of this standard, we consider the parties' arguments.

III.DISCUSSION

On appeal to this Court, Ms. Kruse assigns numerous errors to the circuit court's order awarding summary judgment to Dr. Farid, including the circuit court failed to appreciate certain disputed facts; the circuit court relied on the wrong law in deciding the case; the circuit court misapplied the MPLA; and the circuit court erred by failing to recognize the public policy implications of this case. Dr. Farid responds by urging this Court to affirm the circuit court's ruling insofar as the circuit court properly applied the law to find that, after Ms. Kruse left the hospital AMA, he no longer had a duty to her because she had terminated the physician-patient relationship. Dr. Farid additionally argues that the circuit court correctly granted summary judgment to him because it determined there to be no genuine issues of material fact in this case.

Ms. Kruse first contends that there exist genuine issues of material fact so as to preclude the circuit court's disposition of this case through summary judgment. In this regard, Ms. Kruse asserts that she has presented expert medical testimony evidencing the applicable standard of care and opining that Dr. Farid's treatment of her did not comply therewith. Ms. Kruse also avers that she did not appreciate that she was signing out AMA, although she acknowledges that she did...