This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The Plaintiff, an inmate, alleged that the Defendants, Wexford Medical Services and associated personnel, failed to provide necessary medical treatment for a growth on his calf, causing severe pain and immobility. The Plaintiff claimed that the lack of treatment was due to COVID-19 restrictions and his housing in a COVID unit, which allegedly prevented him from receiving timely medical care (paras 9-10).
Procedural History
- District Court of Lea County: Granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants, finding that the Plaintiff failed to disclose a medical expert as required by Rule 1-026(B)(6)(a) NMRA, leaving him unable to establish essential elements of his negligence claim (paras 1 and 3).
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiff-Appellant: Argued that his failure to disclose a medical expert was due to the Defendants' failure to provide his medical records and contended that expert testimony was unnecessary to establish his negligence claim (paras 2 and 4).
- Defendants-Appellees: Maintained that the Plaintiff did not comply with the disclosure requirements and failed to demonstrate a need for additional discovery to oppose the summary judgment motion (paras 3 and 5).
Legal Issues
- Whether the Plaintiff's failure to disclose a medical expert, as required by Rule 1-026(B)(6)(a) NMRA, was excusable due to the Defendants' alleged failure to provide medical records.
- Whether expert testimony was necessary to establish the negligence claim asserted by the Plaintiff (paras 2 and 8).
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment in favor of the Defendants, denying the Plaintiff's request to amend the docketing statement (paras 1 and 12).
Reasons
Per Attrep, Chief Judge (Bogardus and Henderson JJ. concurring):
The Court found that the Plaintiff did not comply with Rule 1-026(B)(6)(a) NMRA by failing to disclose a medical expert, which was necessary to establish the standard of care, breach, and causation elements of his negligence claim. The Plaintiff's arguments regarding the Defendants' failure to provide medical records and the necessity of expert testimony were unpersuasive. The Court noted that the Plaintiff did not utilize available procedural mechanisms, such as Rule 1-056(F), to seek additional discovery or delay the summary judgment ruling. The Court concluded that expert testimony was necessary given the medical judgment involved in the case, and the Plaintiff's failure to provide such evidence justified the summary judgment (paras 3-10).