{
  "id": 1910459,
  "name": "Veronica CAMPBELL by Next Friend P. Chapman v. Shirley BARD, M.D.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Campbell v. Bard",
  "decision_date": "1993-12-20",
  "docket_number": "93-465",
  "first_page": "366",
  "last_page": "369",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "315 Ark. 366"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "868 S.W.2d 62"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "298 Ark. 353",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1889895
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1989,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/298/0353-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 367,
    "char_count": 5469,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.881,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.0599897330993742e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5567896043360057
    },
    "sha256": "fa2f7806c177d8d676b9e79f6359e6f8ef6dd524677283a34ca27f9e89c0de9f",
    "simhash": "1:d9c576f70e55aab9",
    "word_count": 929
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:39:34.144281+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Brown, J., concurs."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Veronica CAMPBELL by Next Friend P. Chapman v. Shirley BARD, M.D."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Steele Hays, Justice.\nThis is a medical malpractice case. Patricia Campbell sued Dr. Shirley Bard on behalf of herself and her ten-year-old daughter, Veronica. Mrs. Campbell claimed Dr. Bard treated Veronica for chronic constipation when in fact she was suffering from colitis, alleging a failure to properly test, diagnose, and treat.\nAfter the issues were joined Dr. Bard moved for summary judgment with two affidavits- her own and that of another physician. It thus developed that Dr. Bard sought to impute liability to an emergency room physician employed by a hospital represented by counsel for Mrs. Campbell, posing a conflict. Counsel for Mrs. Campbell filed a response to the motion for summary judgment asserting that the supporting affidavits were conclusory. Counsel also moved for leave to withdraw as attorney for Mrs. Campbell. The motion to withdraw was granted and later the motion for summary judgment was granted.\nMrs. Campbell appeals from the summary judgment on two points: it was error to grant summary judgment without first holding a hearing and Dr. Bard\u2019s supporting affidavits were conclusory. As we find merit in the first point, we do not reach the second.\nRule 56(b) of the Ark. R. Civ. P. provides that a party against whom a claim is asserted may move at any time for a summary judgment. Rule 56(c) provides in part:\nThe motion shall be served at least ten days before the time fixed for the hearing. The adverse party, prior to the day of the hearing, may serve opposing affidavits.\nWhile the rule plainly intimates that the opposing party is entitled to ten days notice before a ruling on a motion for summary judgment, we have hesitated to formalize that interpretation of the rule. In Ragar v. Hooper, 298 Ark. 353, 767 S.W.2d 521 (1989), we said:\nWe do not address the appellant\u2019s argument that Rule 56 requires ten days notice of an intent by the trial court to rule on a motion for summary judgment.\nD. Newbern, Arkansas Civil Practice and Procedure \u00a7 26-7 2d Ed. (1993) (Summary Judgment Procedure), gives this analysis:\nThe rule [56] contemplates notice of the motion and says it shall be served not less than 10 days before \u201cthe hearing.\u201d While in most cases service of notice and a hearing will be required, they are not absolutely necessary, and if failure to provide them results in no prejudice to the party against whom summary judgment was entered, it will not be reversed.\nNor have the federal courts interpreted the identical language of FRCP Rule 56 with uniformity:\nEven though FRCP 56(c) and FRCP 56(d) both make reference to a hearing on the motion for summary judgment, there is a division of authority among the courts on whether a motion for summary judgment may be granted without affording a hearing to the adverse party. While there are cases indicating that it is normally appropriate to have oral argument on a motion for summary judgment, and it has been held that a District Court errs in giving effect to a local rule in such a manner as to preclude oral argument on motions for summary judgment, there is considerable authority that FRCP 56 does not require a hearing, in the sense of oral argument or testimony by witnesses, or at least that oral argument may be avoided in appropriate circumstances. The fact that there is no oral hearing before a motion is granted does not necessarily mean that the party against whom the motion is granted has been denied due process. Courts not requiring a hearing have interpreted FRCP 56(c) as contemplating 10 days\u2019 advance notice to the adverse party that the matter will be heard and taken under advisement as of a certain day, and that, if the responding party has had an opportunity to prepare and submit affidavits, memoranda, and other materials for the court to consider when ruling on the motion, then he has been \u201cheard\u201d within the meaning of FRCP 56. Alternatively, under this view, the District Court may conduct an informal conference in chambers on a summary judgment motion instead of holding a formal evidentiary hearing.\n28 Federal Procedure \u00a7 62:579 (1984).\nWhile we remain resistant to a rigid requirement that a hearing be held, we believe that in some situations, particularly the one before us, it is inappropriate to order summary judgment without notice to the responding party that the trial court is ready to act on the matter. Certainly the wording of paragraph (c) gives respondents the right to assume they may submit opposing affidavits up until \u201cthe day of the hearing.\u201d In this case, however, we need look no farther than the fact that counsel had been permitted to withdraw by court order and new counsel had not yet entered the case. We deem that fact sufficient to conclude that it was error for the trial court to act on the pending motion for summary judgment while Mrs. Campbell lacked representation without adequate notice that the court was about to do so.\nReversed and remanded for further proceedings.\nBrown, J., concurs.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Steele Hays, Justice."
      },
      {
        "text": "Robert L. Brown, Justice,\nconcurring. I agree with the result reached in this case but would reverse on the basis that Dr. Bard\u2019s affidavits are merely conclusory and, thus, material issues of fact remain for resolution at trial.",
        "type": "concurrence",
        "author": "Robert L. Brown, Justice,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "W. Frank Morledge, P.A., for appellant.",
      "Womack, Landis, Phelps McNeill & McDaniel, by: Paul D. McNeill, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Veronica CAMPBELL by Next Friend P. Chapman v. Shirley BARD, M.D.\n93-465\n868 S.W.2d 62\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered December 20, 1993\nW. Frank Morledge, P.A., for appellant.\nWomack, Landis, Phelps McNeill & McDaniel, by: Paul D. McNeill, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0366-01",
  "first_page_order": 398,
  "last_page_order": 401
}