Background
Summer Stricker, representing the Estate of Allen J. Longsoldier, Jr., pursued civil claims arising from Longsoldier’s death. Before the November 2024 trial, Blaine County and Hill County asserted Montana’s settled party defense, seeking to have the jury consider the fault of Northern Montana Hospital, which had settled with the Estate more than a decade earlier. The hospital declined to intervene or defend.
The Counties called retired emergency-room physician Dr. Thomas Bulger to testify about the applicable standard of care. The Estate argued that he was unqualified under Montana’s statute governing expert testimony in malpractice actions and also challenged the Counties’ effort to allocate fault to the hospital. The jury awarded $681,000 and apportioned fault 41% to Hill County, 15% to Blaine County, and 44% to the hospital. The District Court entered judgment on the verdict and denied the Estate’s post-trial motion.
The Court’s Holding
The Montana Supreme Court affirmed. It held that the Counties’ settled party defense was not a medical malpractice claim against the hospital. The defense sought allocation of responsibility for the claimant’s damages; it did not transform the Counties into claimants asserting damages against a health care provider. Consequently, the Estate’s arguments based on the statutory qualifications for expert witnesses in malpractice actions—including its challenges to Dr. Bulger’s testimony—failed.
The Court also rejected the Estate’s challenge to the special verdict form. At trial, the Estate requested itemized damages and expressed a preference for its own proposed form, but it did not identify with particularity which damages should be itemized or the specific grounds for its objection. The record citation offered for its proposed verdict form pointed instead to a different motion. Because the objection was insufficiently specific, the District Court did not abuse its discretion by using the verdict form submitted to the jury.
Key Takeaways
- A defendant’s statutory settled party defense is an affirmative defense, not a malpractice claim for damages against the settled health care provider.
- The expert-qualification requirements governing testimony in an action on a malpractice claim did not apply merely because the defense required evidence about a hospital’s standard of care.
- An objection to a special verdict form must identify the alleged defect and its grounds with particularity; a general request for itemized damages does not preserve a more specific appellate challenge.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that Montana defendants may seek allocation of fault to a settled health care provider without thereby asserting a medical malpractice claim against that provider. It also underscores the need for trial counsel to make precise, well-supported objections to special verdict forms and to ensure that cited proposed forms are included in the appellate record.
The Court designated the decision as a memorandum opinion that may not be cited and does not serve as precedent.