Courtney Cramer v. Hon. Starr/ munguia/bejarano
240 Ariz. 4, 2016 Ariz. LEXIS 199, 375 P.3d 69 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Arizona's comparative fault statute, an original tortfeasor may name a subsequently negligent medical provider as a nonparty at fault, requiring the trier of fact to apportion fault among all responsible persons. The original tortfeasor remains subject to liability for enhanced harm from foreseeable medical negligence, but that liability is several and determined by their allocated percentage of fault.
Facts:
- In November 2010, a car driven by Courtney Cramer rear-ended a vehicle in which Tammy Munguia was a passenger.
- Following the accident, Munguia complained of headaches and persistent low back pain.
- An MRI revealed several disc protrusions in Munguia's lumbar spine.
- Approximately eight months after the accident, Dr. John Ehteshami recommended and performed spinal fusion surgery on Munguia.
- The surgery did not cure Munguia's symptoms and may have exacerbated her condition.
- An independent medical examiner later opined that the spinal fusion surgery was medically unnecessary and had 'effectively disabled' Munguia.
Procedural Posture:
- Tammy Munguia filed a personal injury action against Courtney Cramer in a state trial court.
- Cramer filed a notice naming Munguia's surgeon, Dr. Ehteshami, as a nonparty at fault.
- Munguia moved for partial summary judgment to strike the notice, arguing it was barred by the Original Tortfeasor Rule.
- The trial court granted Munguia's motion, precluding Cramer from naming the doctor as a nonparty at fault.
- Cramer petitioned the court of appeals for special action review, but the intermediate appellate court declined jurisdiction.
- The Arizona Supreme Court granted review to decide the unsettled legal question.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Arizona's comparative fault statute, A.R.S. § 12-2506, permit an original tortfeasor to name a plaintiff's subsequently negligent medical provider as a nonparty at fault, thereby allowing the trier of fact to apportion fault between them?
Opinions:
Majority - Vice Chief Justice Pelander
Yes, Arizona's comparative fault statute permits an original tortfeasor to name a subsequently negligent medical provider as a nonparty at fault. The court held that the clear mandate of Arizona's Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act (UCATA), A.R.S. § 12-2506, requires the trier of fact to consider the fault of 'all persons who contributed to the alleged injury' and apportion fault accordingly. The court rejected the trial court's application of the common law Original Tortfeasor Rule (OTR) to the extent it would preclude a defendant from naming a negligent medical provider as a nonparty at fault, finding it directly contrary to the statute's establishment of a several-only liability system. The court harmonized a modern version of the OTR, found in Restatement (Third) of Torts § 35, with UCATA. It reasoned that the OTR can establish that the original tortfeasor proximately caused the enhanced harm from foreseeable medical negligence, but UCATA controls the apportionment of fault, meaning the original tortfeasor is only liable for their comparative share of that harm, not automatically for all of it.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the interaction between the common law Original Tortfeasor Rule and Arizona's statutory comparative fault system. It solidifies that the legislative policy of several liability and fault apportionment supersedes common law doctrines that might otherwise impute one party's fault to another. For future litigation, this provides a clear mechanism for original tortfeasors to reduce their liability by having the jury consider the fault of subsequent negligent actors, particularly medical providers. The holding ensures that liability is more precisely aligned with each party's degree of fault, rather than placing the entire burden of subsequent malpractice on the initial tortfeasor.
Unlock the full brief for Courtney Cramer v. Hon. Starr/ munguia/bejarano