White v. Altru Health System
v.
Altru Health System, A
North Dakota Corporation;
First Care Health Center;
P.R. Health Corporation, a
North Dakota Corporation;
and Jamil R. Tareen, M.D., Defendants and Appellees
Judge Debbie Gordon Kleven
| Appellant: | Omdahl Law Office | |
| Appellant: | Shirley Ann Dvorak | |
| Appellee: | Camrud, Maddock, Olson & Larson, Ltd. |
Listen to recording of oral argument
using RealPlayer Basic,© a free download.
I. Which amendment (1997 or 2005) of N.D.C.C. 28-01-46 applies to the case at bar?
II.What standard of review applies to the case before the Court?
III.If N.D.C.C. 28-01-46 (1997) applies to the case at bar, does the statute apply to that portion of the Appellant's claim relating to lack of informed consent?
IV.Does N.D.C.C. 28-10-47 (whether the 1997 or 2005 amendment) apply to those portions of the Appellant's claim relating to negligent hiring or maintenance of an professional medical employee by Altru Heal Systems, Inc. whose license to practice medicine is restricted or whether there is an affirmative duty on the part of that physician and/or his employer to advise patients of such a restriction prior to any procedures being performed by that physician; or put another way whether such non-disclosure is negligent retention of or non-restriction of an employee's duties?
V.Does an agreed-upon extension of time between Plaintiff and Defense counsel to extend time beyond the three month window of N.D. C.C. 28-01-46 to answer Defense Interrogatories asking, among other things, for "each expert you have employed or may designate as an expert witness. ." include filing an affidavit pursuant to N.D.C.C. 28-01-46, where the Interrogatories are answered by the Plaintiff prior to the expiration of the greed-upon extension of time and include the opinion and qualifications of Plaintiff's expert witness?
VI.If the agreed-upon extension of time between Plaintiff and Defense counsel to answer the Defense interrogatories referenced in question V above do not extend to or apply to the three month window required in N.D.C.C. 28-01-46, does that extension of time prevent the Defense counsel from invoking the requirements of N.D.C.C. 28-01-46 relating to the three month window to provide expert support pursuant to the theory of equitable estoppel?
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
I.Whether the District Court properly denied Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of Dismissal and Motion to Vacate Judgment
II.Whether the District Court correctly held that N.D.C.C. 28-01-46 (2005) applies to the case at bar
III.Whether the District Court correctly held that N.D.C.C. 28-01-46 mandates dismissal of Plaintiff's claims
IV.Whether Plaintiff's Complaint includes any claims which are outside the scope of N.D.C.C. 28-01-46
Appellee's Supplemental Brief Issues
I. Whether the Court's decision in Scheer v. Altru Health System, 2007 ND 104, has any impact on this appeal.
Add Docket 20070031 RSS