Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

negligenceappealmotionsummary judgment
appealmotionsummary judgment

Related Cases

Siebe v. University of Cincinnati, 117 Ohio Misc.2d 46, 766 N.E.2d 1070, 2001-Ohio-4109
View Case »
Suthers v. Amgen Inc., 441 F.Supp.2d 478
View Case »
Thompson v. Nason Hosp., 527 Pa. 330, 591 A.2d 703, 59 USLW 2734
View Case »
Porubiansky v. Emory University, 156 Ga.App. 602, 275 S.E.2d 163
View Case »
Baumgardner v. Yusuf, 144 Cal.App.4th 1381, 51 Cal.Rptr.3d 277, 06 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10,761
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Griffin v. Moseley, 356 Mont. 393, 234 P.3d 869, 2010 MT 132

Facts

Carla Griffin was diagnosed with pseudotumor cerebri and referred to Dr. Moseley for shunt surgery. Prior to the surgery, Dr. Moseley discussed the risks but did not inform Carla of alternative treatments such as weight loss or medication. After the surgery, Carla experienced severe leg pain and was later determined to be totally disabled. The Griffins filed a negligence suit against Dr. Moseley, claiming he deviated from the accepted standard of care by not discussing alternative treatments and failing to obtain informed consent.

Carla Griffin was diagnosed with pseudotumor cerebri and referred to Dr. Moseley for shunt surgery. Prior to the surgery, Dr. Moseley discussed the risks but did not inform Carla of alternative treatments such as weight loss or medication.

Issue

Did the District Court abuse its discretion in denying the Griffins leave to amend their complaint and err in granting summary judgment?

Did the District Court abuse its discretion in denying the Griffins leave to amend their complaint and err in granting summary judgment?

Rule

Leave to amend a complaint should be freely given unless it would cause undue prejudice to the opposing party, and summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue of material fact.

Leave to amend a complaint should be freely given unless it would cause undue prejudice to the opposing party, and summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue of material fact.

Analysis

The Supreme Court found that the District Court improperly denied the Griffins' motion to amend their complaint, which sought to clarify their claim regarding informed consent. The court also determined that the Griffins had provided sufficient evidence to suggest that Dr. Moseley was on notice of the allegations concerning both surgical and pre-surgical treatment, thus reversing the summary judgment.

The Supreme Court found that the District Court improperly denied the Griffins' motion to amend their complaint, which sought to clarify their claim regarding informed consent.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reversed the District Court's grant of summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, allowing the Griffins to amend their complaint.

The Supreme Court reversed the District Court's grant of summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, allowing the Griffins to amend their complaint.

Who won?

The Griffins prevailed in the appeal as the Supreme Court reversed the summary judgment in favor of Dr. Moseley, allowing them to proceed with their claims.

The Griffins prevailed in the appeal as the Supreme Court reversed the summary judgment in favor of Dr. Moseley, allowing them to proceed with their claims.

You must be