 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Reed v. Furr's Supermarkets8/22/2000
Plaintiff Arlene Reed appeals the district court's order dismissing her lawsuit against Furr's Supermarkets, Inc. (FSI), with prejudice. The district court dismissed Plaintiff's lawsuit as a sanction for discovery violations. FSI cross-appeals the district court's order denying FSI its costs. We affirm.
Facts
Plaintiff filed her complaint against FSI on April 2, 1996. In her complaint, Plaintiff alleged that she fell and sustained injuries while shopping at a Furr's supermarket in Albuquerque. FSI answered the complaint and the parties thereafter began the discovery phase of the lawsuit.
FSI made several requests to depose Plaintiff, beginning February 18, 1997. FSI also sought answers to interrogatories. FSI's attempts to take the deposition were thwarted by Plaintiff's claims that she was unable to withstand the physical and emotional demands of a deposition. After several attempts to obtain answers to interrogatories and releases for Plaintiff's medical and other records and to make arrangements to take Plaintiff's deposition, FSI filed a motion to compel Plaintiff to produce documents and answer interrogatories. The district court held a hearing on the motion and entered an order compelling Plaintiff to comply with certain portions of FSI's discovery requests.
FSI ultimately deposed Plaintiff and received applicable documents. It then moved the district court to dismiss Plaintiff's lawsuit as a sanction for her failure to comply with discovery. FSI alleged that Plaintiff had withheld information from FSI and had misrepresented the nature of her pre-existing medical conditions. FSI specifically alleged that Plaintiff had misrepresented her past medical conditions by denying that she (1) kept a pain diary; (2) experienced daily headaches; (3) had prior incidents of fatigue; (4) was diagnosed with psychological disorders; (5) suffered from extreme stress; (6) suffered from lower back pain; (7) suffered from chronic illnesses and pain; (8) suffered from extreme anxiety; (9) had a history of fevers; (10) experienced pelvic and abdominal pain, heart palpitations, and dizziness; and (11) had difficulty walking and climbing stairs. FSI also alleged that Plaintiff misrepresented portions of her employment history; namely, that she denied having had employment privileges taken away.
In response, Plaintiff filed an affidavit which stated her explanations for the apparent discrepancies between the answers she gave in her depositions and interrogatories and the information revealed in her medical and employment records. In her affidavit, Plaintiff explained that any differences between her answers and the information in her medical records and employment history were due to the fact that she interpreted the meaning of the questions more narrowly than FSI had expected. In general, Plaintiff's affidavit provided detailed explanations as to each allegation in FSI's motion. She explained, for instance, that when she was asked about a pain diary, she thought that her simple notes on paper did not qualify as a diary. Another example of the type of explanations Plaintiff submitted was that she interpreted the questions about past pelvic pain to exclude pelvic pain arising from "female problems."
The district court held a hearing on FSI's motion to dismiss at which both FSI and Plaintiff presented arguments to the court. The district court granted the motion to dismiss, stating:
I think what there's been here is an intentional pattern of deception with respect to past medical history. I don't think any one item standing alone would do it, but we have item after item after item, and then, in addition to that, there's a te
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 New Mexico Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|