Court Summaries

• Publication year: 2024
• Citation: Vol. 47 No. 5 Pg. 34
• Pages: 34

Court SummariesVol. 47 No. 5 Pg. 34Wyoming Bar JournalOctober, 2024

Emily S. Madden

Emily Madden is an Associate at The Spence Law Firm, LLC in Casper, Wyoming.

Loyning v. Potter

2024 WY 82

August 1, 2024

Mother and Father were involved in a custody dispute over Child in Montana. Child lived with Mother in Wyoming and attended counseling with Therapist in Wyoming. Under the Montana custody order, both parents had a right to access Child's medical records. Father served a Montana subpoena duces tecum on Therapist seeking the Child's complete treatment file, including any notes of observations of parents or family members. Therapist moved to quash the subpoena in Wyoming district court, arguing that (1) the file is privileged and confidential under HIPAA and Wyoming's therapist-client privilege; and (2) disclosure would be contrary to Child's best interests. The district court granted the motion to quash in part and held Father could access Child's file except for Therapist's "treatment notes, interviews, notes of impressions, or process notes." The court stated the ruling "erred on the side of caution" regarding Child's best interests, but did not identify any statutory or procedural basis to support this conclusion. On appeal, the Wyoming Supreme Court found this was an abuse of discretion.

A trial court may properly quash a subpoena if compliance would require the disclosure of privileged or other protected matter and no exception or waiver applies. In Wyoming, the right to assert the therapist-client privilege, along with "the concomitant power to waive the privilege," belongs to the client and his or her guardian. By denying the motion to quash in part, the district court found Father could waive the privilege for Child. Based on this determination, there was no procedural or statutory basis for granting the motion in part based on Child's best interests. Moreover, the district court never held an evidentiary hearing or made factual findings regarding Child's best interests and merely assumed Child's best interests would be served by allowing Therapist to withhold a portion of the file. Additionally, and although HIPAA does not allow a parent to access a child's psychotherapy notes, the Court found HIPAA does not support the district court's decision because HIPAA regulations do not govern disclosure and discovery obligations in civil actions. Therefore, the Court reversed and remanded for issuance of a new order fully denying Therapist's motion to quash.

McNair v. Beck

2024 WY 85

August 8, 2024

In December 2020, Dr. Beck performed a cervical fusion surgery on Plaintiff" at Star Valley Health. In early 2021, Plaintiff" reported to Dr. Beck at Teton Orthopaedics with post-operative complaints of a metal wire protruding from her neck. Plaintiff" claims these complaints were minimized and ignored. On April 13, 2021, Plaintiff" sought emergency treatment for a perforated esophagus and infection which she contends were the result of medical malpractice. On April 10, 2023, she filed her complaint against Dr. Beck, Teton Orthopaedics, and Star Valley Health.

Defendants filed motions to dismiss claiming the action was barred by the statute of limitations, which is two years from the date of the alleged act, error, or omission. Wyoming recognizes the continuous treatment rule in medical malpractice actions for purposes of determining when the statute of limitations begins to run. Under that rule, "the act, error, or omission" is "the termination of the course of treatment for the same or related illnesses or injuries." Dr. Beck's and Teton Orthopaedics's motion to dismiss claimed Plaintiff stopped treating in January 2021. Since Plaintiff alleged Star Valley Health negligently failed to sterilize the operating room, Star Valley argued Plaintiff's statute began to run when she was discharged post-operatively on December 31, 2020.

Plaintiff sought to amend her complaint to clarify the cessation of treatment. The proposed amended complaint included allegations that Dr. Beck ordered her to engage in post-operative physical therapy; the physical therapist listed Dr. Beck as the overseeing physician; Dr. Beck communicated with the physical therapist about Plaintiff's treatment; and Plaintiff continued physical therapy as ordered by Dr. Beck until May 11, 2021. Based on these allegations, Plaintiff argued she had until May 11, 2023, to file her complaint, making her April 2023 filing timely.

The district court granted Defendants' motions to dismiss. In doing so, the court found the continuous treatment rule inapplicable because Plaintiff's injury was the result of a single act of negligence (the surgery) rather than a series of treatments. Accordingly, the court concluded all statutes of limitations for all Defendants began to run on the date of Plaintiff's discharge. Based on this conclusion, the court found an amendment would be futile and denied Plaintiff's motion.

The Supreme Court held the district court erred in determining the continuous treatment rule did not apply. The district court essentially applied the "single act exception" to the continuous treatment rule. While that exception is recognized in some jurisdictions, it was expressly rejected by the Wyoming Supreme Court in 2013 as "inconsistent with our precedent, not widely accepted, and difficult to apply." Since the continuous treatment rule applies, the limitations periods started to run on the last day Plaintiff was treated by Defendants. The complaint alleged Plaintiff was injured during the surgery, but it also...