Sander v. Geib, Elston, Frost Professional Association

Supreme Court of South Dakota · Torts

Tortsmedical malpracticewrongful deathdamages capstatutory interpretationevidenceSDCL 21-3-11SDCL 15-2-14.1

Facts

Kimberlee Sander received routine pap smears from her physician for years, and each was sent to Clinical Laboratory for evaluation. Clinical Laboratory reported her 1984 and 1986 smears as negative, but after Kim was diagnosed in 1987 with advanced cervical cancer, later reviews showed those earlier smears contained abnormal or malignant changes that had not been properly reported. Kim died in 1988, and her estate and survivors pursued claims for her pain, suffering, medical expenses, and wrongful death. The jury awarded $3.7 million against Clinical Laboratory, but the trial court reduced the award to $1 million under SDCL 21-3-11.

Issue

Whether a medical professional association such as Clinical Laboratory qualifies as an 'other practitioner of the healing arts' entitled to the damages cap in SDCL 21-3-11. The court also considered whether the statute is an affirmative defense and whether, if applicable, it applies separately to personal injury and wrongful death actions.

Rule

Under SDCL 21-3-11, only a natural person can be a 'practitioner of the healing arts'; a medical corporation or professional association is not such a practitioner and cannot claim the statute's damages cap unless the legislature expressly includes that entity. SDCL 21-3-11 is not an affirmative defense that must be pled, and when applicable it applies separately to an injured party's personal injury action and to each statutory beneficiary's wrongful death action.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Sioux Falls, a jury awards $2.4 million against Prairie Diagnostic Group, P.A., a professional association that operates a pathology practice. All of its owners are licensed physicians, but the verdict is entered only against the association under a pretrial stipulation.

If the association asks the court to reduce the verdict under South Dakota's medical malpractice damages cap for a "practitioner of the healing arts," how should the court rule?

Explanation. The cap applies only to the persons and entities named in the statute, including "other practitioner[s] of the healing arts." The majority held that a "practitioner" means a natural person capable of holding the relevant license, not a corporation or professional association. Ownership by licensed physicians does not change the entity's status. Thus the professional association cannot invoke the cap. (Derived from Sander v. Geib, Elston, Frost Professional Association (n.d.).)