University of Missouri knee replacement case going back to appeals court despite recent settlement
Even though the University of Missouri has settled lawsuits over knee replacements using cadaver bones or ligaments, the case remains active.
The Missouri Supreme Court this week transferred the case back to the Missouri Court of Appeals. The appeals court initially did not take up the case against the UM Board of Curators, orthopedic surgeon James Stannard and Mizzou BioJoint Center Director James Cook, citing lack of jurisdiction.
The appeals court had said the judgments from the Boone County Circuit Court were not final and therefore could not be argued at the appeals court level.
The Supreme Court disagreed.
When did the Missouri Supreme Court hear this case?
Oral arguments in the case were heard by the Supreme Court in October. There were at least 17 plaintiffs — those who sued the university — at the time. The Supreme Court noted eight plaintiffs in its decision issued Tuesday.
More: Missourians sued the University of Missouri over knee replacements. Do they have a case?
Arguments in October were made over the university's sovereign immunity from being sued, its insurance plans and the university entering the business market with nontraditional knee replacement surgery.
Instead of considering those arguments, the Supreme Court analyzed the judgments at the circuit court and appeals court levels.
How did the Supreme Court reach its decision?
When the Boone County Circuit Court dismissed the suits against the curators, it certified its judgments under the Supreme Court final judgment rule.
"A final judgment is one that disposes of all issues, claims and parties," the rule states.
The appeals court contended the circuit court had not fully resolved at least one claim, so it was not a final judgement, per the rules, and the appeals court could not rule.
A transfer of the case to the Supreme Court was sought and granted.
More: MU settles lawsuits over knee surgeries involving veterinarian
Since the circuit court had resolved issues against the curators, that signed judgment was final, so the appeals court should have looked at it, according to the Supreme Court decision. This is why it was transferred back to the appeals court for further review.
The judgment was entered as an intermediate appeal, while other proceedings would take place, such as cases against Stannard and Cook. The Supreme Court concluded that this action would not severely prejudice other courts.
What were the lawsuits against Stannard and Cook?
Eight lawsuits were filed in February and March 2019 against the curators, Stannard and Cook.
Plaintiffs allege the alternative knee replacement surgery was marketed as viable and equally successful to traditional replacements. Individual claims were filed against Stannard and Cook relating to medical malpractice, but there also were joint claims against the pair and the curators for misrepresentation under Missouri's Merchandising Practices Act.
University lawyers sought dismissal at the circuit court level on the misrepresentation claims, which were granted, asserting sovereign immunity, according to the Supreme Court decision. The university, as a public entity of the state, cannot be sued in state or federal court because of the sovereign immunity doctrine.
"The circuit court sustained the motions and dismissed the Curators from each of the suits with prejudice," the Supreme Court decision stated. "These orders were in writing, signed by the judge, and denominated 'judgments of dismissal.'"
The judgments were certified, meaning the plaintiffs could appeal.
The cases were not taken up at the appeals court level on the premise that the similar claims against Stannard and Cook were still pending at the circuit court.
The appeals court reasoned that not all of the issues with the case were resolved, so it could not yet be brought up on appeal, despite the final judgement for the curators at the circuit court.
The Supreme Court saw it differently.
"An order that 'fully resolves at least one claim in a lawsuit and establishes all the rights and liabilities of the parties with respect to that claim' is, in substance, a judgment," the Supreme Court decision noted.
The appeals court will now be reviewing the case against the curators.