United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Jonesboro Division
SHELBY COUNTY HEALTH CARE CORPORATION d/b/a REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER PLAINTIFF
v.
SOUTHERN FARM BUREAU CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL. DEFENDANTS
ORDER
BILLY
ROY WILSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Pending
is Defendant's Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance
Company, Medford Farm Partnership, and Aaron Medford
(“the Farm”) Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc.
No. 130).[1] Also pending is Plaintiff's Motion for
Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 133). Responses have been filed to
both motions.[2] For the reasons set out below, the
Farm's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 130) is
DENIED. The Med's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No.
133) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
I.
BACKGROUND
For the
background, please see the order entered on December 21,
2018.[3]
II.
STANDARD
Summary
judgment is appropriate only when there is no genuine issue
of material fact, so that the dispute may be decided on
purely legal grounds.[4] The Supreme Court has established
guidelines to assist trial courts in determining whether this
standard has been met:
The inquiry performed is the threshold inquiry of determining
whether there is the need for a trial -- whether, in other
words, there are any genuine factual issues that properly can
be resolved only by a finder of fact because they may
reasonably be resolved in favor of either
party.[5]
The
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has cautioned that
summary judgment is an extreme remedy that should be granted
only when the movant has established a right to the judgment
beyond controversy.[6] Nevertheless, summary judgment promotes
judicial economy by preventing trial when no genuine issue of
fact remains.[7] A court must view the facts in the light
most favorable to the party opposing the
motion.[8]
The
Eighth Circuit has also set out the burden of the parties in
connection with a summary judgment motion:
[T]he burden on the party moving for summary judgment is only
to demonstrate, i.e., “[to point] out to the
District Court, ” that the record does not disclose a
genuine dispute on a material fact. It is enough for the
movant to bring up the fact that the record does not contain
such an issue and to identify that part of the record which
bears out his assertion. Once this is done, his burden is
discharged, and, if the record in fact bears out the claim
that no genuine dispute exists on any material fact, it is
then the respondent's burden to set forth affirmative
evidence, specific facts, showing that there is a genuine
dispute on that issue. If the respondent fails to carry that
burden, summary judgment should be granted.[9]
Only
disputes over facts that may affect the outcome of the suit
under governing law will properly preclude the entry of
summary judgment.[10]
III.
DISCUSSION
The
Farm argues: (1) it had no intent to impair the lien; (2)
Plaintiff failed to mitigate its damages; (3) Plaintiff's
claims are barred under the doctrine of laches; and (4)
Plaintiff has waived any alleged right to relief under its
lien impairment.
The Med
asserts: (1) Defendants impaired the hospital lien by the
plain terms of the statute; (2) impairment of the hospital
lien creates a liability on Defendants for one-third of the
settlement amount plus prejudgment interest.
A.
Intent
The
Farm claims that the Eighth Circuit's most recent opinion
describes the Med's lien impairment action as “a
wrong analogous to the common-law tort of conversion,
”[11] and intentional tort in
Tennessee.[12] It asserts that since the Eighth Circuit
found the claim of lien impairment to be analogous with
conversion, the Med must prove intent to impair the lien. In
response, the Med claims that there is no mens rea
requirement in the Tennessee HLA. The Tennessee HLA provides
that “any acceptance of a release or satisfaction of
any such cause of action . . . claim . . . demand or judgment
and any settlement of any of the foregoing in the absence of
a release or satisfaction of the lien [] shall prima facie
constitute an impairment of such lien.”[13] It is
...