Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 503
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION IV
No. CV-24-761
JUDY CRUZ, SPECIAL Opinion Delivered: October 28, 2026
ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE
APPEAL FROM THE WASHINGTON
OF JEFFREY B. CRUZ
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
APPELLANT
[NO. 72CV-23-3166]
V.
HONORABLE DOUG MARTIN,
JUDGE
JACOB BOYDSTUN, D.O.; UHS OF
SPRINGWOODS, LLC, D/B/A
SPRINGWOODS BEHAVIORAL
HEALTH; UNIVERSAL HEALTH
SERVICES, INC.; UHS OF DELAWARE,
INC.; AND JOHN DOES 1 THROUGH 5
APPELLEES REVERSED AND REMANDED
BART F. VIRDEN, Judge
I. Summary
This suit arises from the death of Jeffrey B. Cruz, who passed away by means of
suicide. Appellant Judy Cruz, as the special administratrix of Jeffrey’s estate, filed this
wrongful-death action against Jacob Boydstun, D.O. (“Dr. Boydstun”); and UHS of
Springwoods, LLC, d/b/a Springwoods Behavioral Health (“Springwoods”); Universal
Health Services, Inc.; and UHS of Delaware, Inc. (collectively referred to as “entity
appellees”).
Appellant appeals the final order of the Washington County Circuit Court consisting
of two separate orders granting summary judgment to Dr. Boydstun and entity appellees. On
appeal, appellant challenges these orders, arguing that (1) Dr. Boydstun and entity appellees
raised a single ground for summary judgment that did not address an alternate theory of
liability pled by appellant; (2) no admissible evidence was submitted in support of their
motions for summary judgment; (3) genuine issues of material fact remain as to Dr. Boydstun
and the entity appellees separately; and (4) appellant’s amended complaint rendered the
entity appellees’ motion for summary judgment moot. We agree that genuine issues of
materials fact precluded summary judgment, and we reverse and remand both summaryjudgment orders for further proceedings.
II. Factual Background
On June 7, 2022, Jeffrey attempted to commit suicide by cutting his wrists bilaterally
and placing a plastic bag affixed with glue over his head so it would not come off. Appellant
found him, and he was transported by EMS to North Arkansas Regional Medical Center
(“NARMC”) in Harrison, Arkansas, where he underwent surgery for the self-inflicted injuries
to his wrists. While being taken to pre-op on Wednesday, June 8, 2022, Jeffrey attempted to
climb off the stretcher, and a code orange was called. Jeffrey was calmed and redirected back
onto the stretcher; however, once he was in pre-op, he climbed off the stretcher again in a
“fight or flight mode” and attempted to open the main doors of the surgery department.
Jeffrey was physically restrained, administered medicine, and placed back on the stretcher
before being taken back to the emergency room.
2
Following this incident, a note was entered in Jeffrey’s medical records at 2:30 p.m.
that stated, “PT PLACED ON A 72 HOUR HOLD. RIGHTS WERE READ AND
WITNESSED BY TIFFANY, RN AND MCKENZIE, RN.” Dr. Richard Chitsey, who was
caring for Jeffrey at that time, also entered the following handwritten note in Jeffrey’s medical
records: “6/8/22 1415 72 hour hold.”1 Under Ark. Code Ann. § 20-47-210(a)(1), when a
person posing a danger to himself or others is immediately confined, a petition for
involuntary admission must be filed within seventy-two hours of detention in the circuit
court of the county where he resides or is detained. A “Petition to Involuntarily Admit
Person with Mental Illness” was prepared by Dr. Chitsey and notarized the same day;
however, for unknown reasons, it was never filed in circuit court.
Jeffrey was transferred to Springwoods in Fayetteville, Arkansas, on Saturday, June
11, 2022. His medical records from Springwoods state that he was admitted “on a 72-hour
involuntary hold from North Arkansas Regional Medical Center” following a suicide
attempt. Dr. Boydstun assumed Jeffrey’s care on the morning of Monday, June 13, 2022,
and after caring for Jeffrey and reviewing his information, he noted the following in his
discharge summary:
[T]he patient was on a 72-hour involuntary hold placed on 06/08/2022 at
1415 hours, scheduled to elapse or expire on 06/13/2022 at 1415. The patient
was unwilling to sign in for voluntary treatment. I was in contact with the
Boone County Mental Health Court representatives. I was advised that no
petition for extension was ever filed by North Arkansas Regional Medical
1
Weekends and holidays are not included for calculating a seventy-two-hour hold period under Ark. Code Ann. 20-47-210(a)(1) (Supp. 2025). Therefore, the anticipated expiration of Jeffrey’s hold was 2:15 p.m. on Monday, June 13, 2022.
3
Center despite their being documentation of a petition in the support
material. I was referred to the Deputy Prosecuting Attorney; however, multiple
attempts to reach that individual to determine if a petition had been filed with
the Deputy Prosecuting Attorney were unsuccessful, and on reaching the 1400
hour of 06/13/2022, I determined that I no longer had grounds to detain the
patient involuntarily.
Dr. Boydstun further noted that during a face-to-face encounter, Jeffrey denied
thoughts of suicide and was mainly concerned with having the injuries to his wrist examined
by an emergency room department. The Springwoods therapy department arranged for a
therapist to accompany Jeffrey in a taxi upon his release from Springwoods to the
Washington Regional Emergency Room to have his wrists examined. When the taxi arrived
for transport, Jeffrey fled on foot. Springwoods and local law enforcement attempted to
locate Jeffrey; however, he committed suicide before he could be located, and his body was
found the following day.
On August 2, 2023, appellant, as the special administratrix of Jeffrey’s estate, filed a
wrongful-death suit against Dr. Boydstun, entity appellees, and John Does 1–5 claiming Dr.
Boydstun’s discharge of Jeffrey and the failure of the nurse supervisor and other employees
of the entity appellees to review Jeffrey’s file and determine that no petition had been filed
was negligent and fell below the respective requisite standards of care.
On October 16, 2023, the case was transferred to the Washington County Circuit
Court for procedural reasons. On November 8, Dr. Boydstun moved for summary judgment,
arguing he owed no duty to unlawfully detain Jeffrey at the expiration of a seventy-two-hour
involuntary psychiatric hold. Appellant responded, arguing that a hold period never began,
4
and further, the six hours Dr. Boydstun cared for Jeffrey was ample time to file a petition for
involuntary admission and obtain an order to prolong the hold.
Entity appellees also moved for summary judgment adopting Dr. Boydstun’s motion
in its entirety pursuant to Ark. R. Civ. P. 10(c) and arguing that if no duty was owed by Dr.
Boydstun, then no duty was owed by entity appellees.
A hearing on Dr. Boydstun’s motion was held on February 2, 2024. The circuit court
granted Dr. Boydstun’s motion from the bench, finding that (1) upon discovering the
petition was never filed by Dr. Chitsey, Dr. Boydstun attempted to contact the deputy
prosecuting attorney in Boone County and was not able to reach anyone to determine what
next steps he should take; (2) Dr. Boydstun had a short amount of time to find his own
reasons to file a petition and determined that filing a new petition was something he could
not do; and (3) the statute governing involuntary psychiatric holds initiates detention “72
hours from being held,” and therefore, the seventy-two-hour hold expired at 2:15 p.m. on
June 13, 2022. The circuit court entered an order granting Dr. Boydstun’s summaryjudgment motion February 5, 2024.
On February 18, 2024, appellant filed an amended complaint with new allegations
specific to the entity appellees. Among other new allegations, appellant claimed that
Springwoods more likely than not could have filed a petition and had an order entered on
June 13, 2022. Entity appellees filed separate answers to appellant’s amended complaint on
March 11.
5
Appellant filed a “Motion to Reconsider Order Granting Summary Judgment Against
Separate Defendant Boydstun” on April 30, arguing that numerous documents relevant to
Dr. Boydstun’s motion had been produced in the entity appellees’ summary-judgment
proceedings that raised factual issues, including Dr. Boydstun’s deposition. In a singlesentence order, the circuit court denied appellant’s motion on August 1.
On August 30, 2024, the circuit court entered an order granting summary judgment
to entity appellees.2 Appellant timely appealed.
III. Standard of Review
Summary judgment is a remedy that should be granted only when there are no
genuine issues of material fact to litigate and when the case can be decided as a matter of
law. Durden v. Conway Behav. Health Hosp., LLC, 2025 Ark. App. 284, 715 S.W.3d 876. The
purpose of summary judgment is not to try the issues but to determine whether there are
any issues to be tried. Dixon v. P. Reddy Tukivakala, M.D., P.A., 2020 Ark. App. 570, 614
S.W.3d 470. Once the moving party has demonstrated an entitlement to summary judgment,
Arkansas law shifts the burden to the nonmoving party, who must show that a genuine issue
of material fact remains by meeting proof with proof to show a genuine issue as to a material
fact. Harvey v. Johnson, 2025 Ark. App. 393, 715 S.W.3d 930.
2
John Does 1–5 were never served; therefore, pursuant to Ark. R. Civ. P. 54(b)(5), they are dismissed by operation of law. See Glob. Econ. Res., Inc. v. Swaminathan, 2011 Ark. App. 349, 389 S.W.3d 631.
6
On appellate review, we determine if summary judgment was appropriate by
ascertaining whether the evidentiary items presented by the moving party in support of the
motion leave a material question of fact unanswered. Dixon, supra. We view the evidence in
the light most favorable to the party against whom the motion was filed, resolving all doubts
and inferences against the moving party. Id. Summary judgment is not appropriate where
evidence, although in no material dispute as to actuality, reveals aspects from which
inconsistent hypotheses might reasonably be drawn and reasonable minds might differ.
Turner v. Nw. Ark. Neurosurgery Clinic, P.A., 84 Ark. App. 93, 133 S.W.3d 417 (2003). When
the parties agree on the facts, however, this court simply determines whether the appellee
was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Johnson v. Universal Health Servs., Inc., 2022 Ark.
App. 324, 652 S.W.3d 581. As to issues of law presented, this court’s review is de novo. Id.
IV. Discussion
The circuit court granted Dr. Boydstun’s motion for summary judgment and,
subsequently, entity appellees’ motion adopting the same arguments as Dr. Boydstun,
finding Dr. Boydstun owed Jeffrey no duty to detain him beyond 2:15 p.m. on June 13,
2022. This finding was based on Dr. Boydstun’s belief that Dr. Chitsey’s seventy-two-hour
involuntary hold had expired and that there was nothing he could do before the hold expired
to prolong Jeffrey’s stay.
From the outset, we note that “belief” is inherently a question of fact. What Dr.
Boydstun believed to be true during the six hours he cared for Jeffrey appeared to affect what
actions he took as a medical provider and, later, the findings made by the circuit court to
7
support its decision that Dr. Boydstun owed no duty that day. The circuit court premised its
summary-judgment orders on conflicting evidence concerning (1) whether Dr. Boydstun was
able to contact the deputy prosecuting attorney’s office for further guidance; and (2) what
other actions Dr. Boydstun could have taken in the six hours he cared for Jeffrey. Because
the final order on appeal consists of two summary-judgment orders, we will address them
separately.
A. Genuine Issues of Material Fact
1. Dr. Boydstun’s motion for summary judgment
The circuit court’s order granting Dr. Boydstun summary judgment gave little
explanation as to its reasoning, simply stating, “[T]he Court finds that the motion is well
founded and should be granted for the reasons articulated at the hearing which are
incorporated into this order.” The circuit court ruled the following from the bench: (1) Dr.
Boydstun tried and failed to find another reason to hold Jeffrey on June 13, 2022; (2) Dr.
Boydstun determined he could not find reasons to file a petition on his own; (3) Dr.
Boydstun unsuccessfully made multiple attempts to reach the deputy prosecuting attorney;
(4) the statute concerning psychiatric holds initiates detention from the time a person is held
rather than when an attestation is made; and (5) therefore, the seventy-two-hour hold expired
at 2:15 p.m. on June 13, 2022.
Dr. Boydstun’s motion for summary judgment argued that summary judgment should
be granted because Dr. Boydstun owed no duty to unlawfully detain Jeffrey at the expiration
of a seventy-two-hour involuntary psychiatric hold. Appellant responded by arguing that
8
there was a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether an involuntary-hold detention
ever began, and Dr. Boydstun owed a duty to properly place Jeffrey on a seventy-two-hour
involuntary hold on June 13, 2022.
Appellant’s argument that Dr. Boydstun owed a duty to properly place Jeffrey on a
seventy-two-hour involuntary hold raised two factual issues: (1) whether, upon learning from
the Boone County Circuit Court that NARMC had never filed a petition, Dr. Boydstun
attempted to contact the deputy prosecuting attorney’s office on the day of Jeffrey’s release
to determine what next steps he should take; and (2) the probability or possibility that Dr.
Boydstun could have filed a petition to involuntarily hold Jeffrey while he was in his care.
In his motion, Dr. Boydstun detailed the actions he took during the six hours he
cared for Jeffrey, citing the discharge summary he prepared from Jeffrey’s medical records.
The discharge summary stated that Dr. Boydstun learned from the Boone County
Mental Health Court representatives that “no petition for extension was ever filed by North
Arkansas Regional Medical Center despite [there] being documentation of a petition in the
support materia[l].” Dr. Boydstun was then referred to the deputy prosecuting attorney. Dr.
Boydstun claimed that he made several attempts to reach the prosecuting attorney to
determine if a petition had been filed with that office. At 2:00 p.m. on June 13, 2022, Dr.
Boydstun believed he no longer had grounds to involuntarily detain Jeffrey. The only exhibits
attached to Dr. Boydstun’s motion were Jeffrey’s medical records from NARMC and
Springwoods along with appellant’s “Answers to Second Set of Interrogatories and Requests
for Production of Documents of Jacob Boydstun, D.O., Propounded to Plaintiff.” Dr.
9
Boydstun had not been deposed at the time he filed his motion for summary judgment
despite appellant’s request before the motion hearing to do so.3
Appellant challenged Dr. Boydstun’s assertion that he had made several attempts to
contact the deputy prosecuting attorney’s office on June 13, 2022. She stated there were no
records from the deputy prosecuting attorney’s office on that day from Dr. Boydstun or
Springwoods in general attempting to contact the deputy prosecuting attorney. In support
of this argument, appellant attached as an exhibit to her response an affidavit from the
deputy prosecuting attorney for the 14th Judicial District of Arkansas, Patricia Virnig, who
stated:
2. I am the deputy prosecuting attorney responsible for involuntary
commitment proceedings in Boone County, Arkansas. As such, I am
very familiar with the practices and procedures of the 14th Judicial
circuit prosecuting attorney’s office to proceed and obtain a hearing for
an involuntary commitment. Our office is capable of filing a petition
and obtaining a hearing in emergency situations within the statutory
time frame.
3. Further, I have reviewed my office records and do not find any phone
calls, emails or other attempt to contact me from either Dr. Boydstun
or Springwoods Behavioral Health on June 13, 2022.
3
When the circuit court asked defense counsel why there was no affidavit from Dr. Boydstun detailing what actions he took the morning of June 13, 2022, defense counsel responded,
Because it’s in his medical record that is undisputed that’s his medical record charting
at the time. So why would I need to attach an affidavit of him when I’ve got his legal
medical record that everyone agrees is his legal medical record? They claim it’s
deficient because they claim he -- you know, their reasons which we’ve talked about
all day. I mean, I anticipate he will testify exactly what he said in his legal medical
record. Again, that’s not the issue here. The issue is can you hold him after the
expiration of the window.
10
4. I have dealt with Springwoods Behavioral Health and Dr. Boydstun on
other cases involving Boone County involuntary commitment patients
transferred to Washington County, and Springwoods Behavioral
Health. If I had been consulted, I would have advised that a new
evaluation be performed and a new Petition be filed in Washington
County.
Appellant further argued that upon learning that no petition had been filed in this
matter, Dr. Boydstun had a duty to order a seventy-two-hour hold and properly file it in the
Washington County Circuit Court, and the six-hour window Dr. Boydstun cared for Jeffrey
was ample time to file a petition and obtain an order. In support of this argument, appellant
attached as exhibit B to her response an affidavit of Denis Dean, the senior deputy
prosecuting attorney for the 4th Judicial District of Arkansas, which comprises Washington
and Madison Counties. Dean stated:
I am very familiar with the practices, procedures, and abilities of the 4th
judicial circuit prosecuting attorney’s office to proceed and obtain a hearing
for an involuntary commitment. Our office with one exception, is capable of
filing a petition and obtaining a hearing in emergency situations within a few
hours, 2 to 3 hours. The exception to not being able to this would be in the
event it was a time of the Arkansas Judicial Conference and all the judges are
gone and out of the county. There was no Judicial Conference on June 13,
2022.
In reply, Dr. Boydstun did not address appellant’s challenge concerning his attempts
to contact the deputy prosecuting attorney’s office on June 13, 2022. However, he argued
that filing a new petition was “practically impossible” and not legally allowed. On the factual
issue of impossibility, Dr. Boydstun attached as exhibit 1 to his reply a conflicting affidavit
from Denis Dean, in which Dean stated:
11
I previously executed an affidavit at the request of Jeff Slaton [counsel for
Cruz]; however, I was provided minimal information regarding the facts and
circumstances surrounding Jeffrey Cruz, his transfer from North Arkansas
Regional Medical Center (“NARMC”) in Harrison, his admission at
Springwoods Behavioral Health (“SBH”), the circumstances surrounding his
discharge from that facility, or his subsequent suicide.
Because, we never received a petition for the involuntary committal of Jeffrey
Cruz in June of 2022, it would be speculation on my part to assert that a
petition filed on the morning of June 13, 2022, before his 72-hour hold
apparently expired at 2:15 p.m., would more probably than not be processed
and an order entered to prolong the hold before the hold expired.
During the summary-judgment hearing, counsel for appellant argued the factual
issues identified above, stating:
During the six hours, what did [Dr. Boydstun] do or not do to have a petition
filed? Patricia [Virnig], the prosecutor who does the things in Boone County,
says under oath -- Dr. Boydstun has not been under oath -- she says under oath
in an affidavit that she could have got it filed within the time period. We have
conflicting affidavits, if you want to call it that, from Denis Dean. You have
one where he equivocally says I could have got it done in two to three hours
unless there was a judicial conference. That -- both of those things are issues
of fact, Judge, clearly.
The circuit court responded only by asking if Mr. Dean’s affidavit was attached to Dr.
Boydstun’s reply. Discussion ensued concerning the possibility or probability that a petition
could have been filed in the time Dr. Boydstun had with Jeffrey; the circuit court reviewed
the medical records obtained from Springwoods to evaluate this issue and stated:
I may be getting into some fact things here, but I think it’s relevant. Dr.
Boydstun is not an attorney. He does say in here that he tried to reach the
attorney -- excuse me, yeah, the deputy prosecutor over in Boone County to
see if the status as he was reading it -- as Dr. Boydstun was reading it was
correct. I believe he never even got hold of anybody over there. Well, Benton
12
County Mental Health Court Representatives told him that no petition for
extension was ever filed by North Arkansas Regional Medical Center despite
there being documentation of a petition and the support material, I think is
what it’s supposed to say. Oh, and then he says he was referred to the deputy
prosecuting attorney; however, multiple attempts to reach that individual to
determine if a petition had been filed with the deputy prosecuting attorney
were unsuccessful. And on reaching the 1400 hour of June 13, 2022, I
determined I no longer had grounds to detain the patient involuntarily. So I
think given the posture of the claims for -- or the allegations as to what Dr.
Boydstun was negligent in performing or failing to perform, I agree that it’s
plaintiff’s position that Dr. Boydstun should have -- going back to that
paragraph 13 [of the complaint] -- should have released him due strictly to
medical reasons as opposed to legal reasons.
On the factual issue of whether Dr. Boydstun attempted to contact the deputy
prosecuting attorney’s office, the circuit court weighed the evidence and determined that Dr.
Boydstun’s discharge notes were credible, while the affidavit of Patricia Virnig, which
claimed he did not attempt to contact her office that day, was not. The circuit court’s
conclusion on this issue seemed to serve as one of several bases for deciding that Dr.
Boydstun had a duty to release Jeffrey at 2:15 p.m. that afternoon. However, it is not the role
of the circuit court, in deciding whether to grant summary judgment, to weigh and resolve
conflicting testimony but to simply decide whether such questions exist to be resolved at
trial. Turner, 84 Ark. App. 93, 133 S.W.3d 417.
The circuit court failed to expressly address the conflicting affidavits from Denis Dean
in its oral ruling and subsequent written order; however, it is evident that the circuit court
weighed those as well. In fact, during the motion hearing, Dr. Boydstun’s counsel and the
circuit court had an exchange concerning Dean’s second affidavit in which the circuit court
stated that it did not believe it would be impossible to get an order entered in the given
13
amount of time and, further, that he hoped Dean did not use the term “impossible” in his
affidavit. When Dr. Boydstun’s counsel answered that “[h]e said it would be speculation,”
the circuit court agreed with Dean’s second conflicting statement, saying, “And that’s very
accurate. Optimistic, speculation.”
This court has consistently held that summary judgment is not proper where it is
necessary to weigh the credibility of statements to resolve an issue. See Savage v. SMS Trucking,
Inc., 2024 Ark. App. 452, 700 S.W.3d 185; Bugg v. Honey, 2021 Ark. App. 393, 636 S.W.3d
359; Mack v. Ivy, 2020 Ark. App. 144. For this reason, we reverse and remand the order
granting Dr. Boydstun’s motion for summary judgment for further proceedings.
2. Entity appellees’ motion for summary judgment
As to entity appellees’ motion, appellant argues that regardless of the outcome of Dr.
Boydstun’s motion, information submitted in response to entity appellees’ motion showed
there are clear issues of material fact relating to Dr. Boydstun’s actions and the failure of
other employees of entity appellees to take action to ensure that a hold extension was timely
obtained. We agree and reverse and remand the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment
in favor of entity appellees as well.
Pursuant to Ark. R. Civ. P. 10(c), entity appellees adopted in its entirety Dr.
Boydstun’s motion for summary judgment. Entity appellees’ motion further argued that if
there is no legal duty owed by Dr. Boydstun, there is also no legal duty owed by the entity
appellees.
14
Appellant’s response, filed on February 18, 2024, following the hearing on Dr.
Boydstun’s motion, included (1) the affidavit of Dr. Mace Beckson setting forth his expert
testimony regarding Dr. Boydstun’s requisite standard of care and (2) a survey of 238
involuntary-commitment petitions filed in Washington County between 2022 and 2023
showing when the subsequent commitment orders in those cases were entered. The petition
records were attached to show the timing of when petitions were filed and their subsequent
orders were entered.
Further, on April 30, 2024, appellant filed a “Motion to Reconsider Order Granting
Summary Judgment Against Separate Defendant Boydstun” arguing that the circuit court
made findings of fact regarding the standard of care Dr. Boydstun exercised on June 13,
2022. Specifically, appellant’s motion cited Dr. Boydstun’s deposition testimony, which was
taken on March 26, 2024, in which he explained why he did not attempt to file a petition
the day he cared for Jeffrey. He said that he did not file a petition because Washington
County would not accept any petitions in the last twenty-four hours of a seventy-two-hour
hold.
In his deposition, Dr. Boydstun stated that he had worked for Springwoods for
approximately four years, and during that time, he learned that part of the process for
“petitioning with Washington County” was working with a clerk named Karen Westfall who
“screens out petitions for various reasons.” He stated that while it was never explicitly stated,
his experience was that if a hold was set to expire in less than twenty-four hours, Karen
Westfall would not accept a petition. A prosecuting attorney seconded this position when
15
Dr. Boydstun asked about it, explaining that twenty-four hours is not enough time to have a
hearing before a hold expires. He finally said, “I knew it was just a futile effort with Jeffrey’s
case because they’ve already told us no. . . . So that’s my reason for not petitioning
Washington County, because I’ve already tried with other cases. It wasn’t going to work. Just
wasn’t.”4
Dr. Boydstun then explained that while he believed Jeffrey may have voluntarily
stayed that day, when it became apparent that he would not, and he discovered a generated
petition from NARMC, “[He] got very encouraged that here there might be a chance for
him. That’s when [he] started [his] efforts with Boone County.” However, Dr. Boydstun felt
he did not know where to begin trying to petition Boone County in terms of what forms
were required or who to call. He Googled “Boone County Court,” called several wrong
numbers, got transferred a couple of times, and then finally contacted someone who
understood his request. He believed that person was either the clerk or Patricia Virnig’s
secretary. When he answered a few questions about the petition, the person he was speaking
to told him the next step was to talk to Patricia Virnig, the prosecutor. Virnig was unavailable
4
Later in his deposition, Dr. Boydstun agreed that nowhere in Denis Dean’s affidavits did he mention a policy that a petition would not be accepted within twenty-four hours of a hold expiring. In fact, he stated that in December 2022, six months following Jeffrey’s death, he had a meeting with Denis Dean and Karen Westfall to discuss the problems he encountered getting petitions to their office in time so they would actually accept and file them, citing a patient who committed suicide in Washington County as a result of the problem.
16
at the time, so he left his contact information for her to call him back; however, by the time
she called him back that afternoon, the hold had expired.
Dr. Boydstun was asked how he could know that a petition and order would have
been obtained on June 13, 2022, if he did not try to file it. In response, Dr. Boydstun
confirmed that he did not try, saying, “I feel very strongly it would not have been accepted.”
Finally, Dr. Boydstun stated that despite the language of the discharge summary in
Jeffrey’s medical records, which stated that Jeffrey met his treatment goals, Dr. Boydstun
disagreed with that language and stated that Jeffrey’s treatment goals were not met. Dr.
Boydstun said that he did not believe Jeffrey was medically ready to be discharged absent the
issue of the hold order and that his “master treatment plan” for Jeffrey estimated a seven-toten-day length of stay.
In addition to Dr. Boydstun, Dr. Shefa Rahman, Springwoods’ chief medical officer,
and Jordan Babcock, Springwoods’ CEO, were deposed on April 22, 2024. Excerpts of their
depositions were attached as exhibits to appellant’s “Amended Response to Entity
Defendants Summary Judgment Motion Post Depositions Allowed by Order Being Taken,”
which was filed on May 13, 2024. No hearing was held on entity appellees’ motion for
summary judgment.
On August 30, 2024, the circuit court entered an order granting entity appellees’
motion for summary judgment, which stated in full:
1. The Motion for Summary Judgment and Brief in Support were filed by these
defendants on January 30, 2024.
17
2. The Court granted summary judgment in favor of Dr. Jacob Boydstun on
February 4, 2024.
3. These defendants adopted and continued to adopt Dr. Boydstun’s motions
and positions.
4. The court entered an order denying plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration
of summary judgment of Dr. Jacob Boydstun on August 1, 2024.
5. Despite the filing of amended responses by the plaintiff and the amended
complaint in this matter, the Court finds that the summary judgment motion of UHS
Springwoods, LLC, d/b/a Springwoods Behavioral Health, is well taken and should
be granted. UHS of Springwoods, d/b/a Springwoods Behavioral Health is hereby
dismissed with prejudice.
6. Despite the filing of amended responses by the plaintiff and the amended
complaint in this matter, the Court finds that the summary judgment motion of
Universal Health Services, Inc., is well taken and should be granted. Universal Health
Services, Inc., is hereby dismissed with prejudice.
7. Despite the filing of amended responses by the plaintiff and the amended
complaint in this matter, the Court finds that the summary judgment motion of UHS
of Delaware, Inc., is well taken and should be granted. UHS of Delaware, Inc., is
hereby dismissed with prejudice.
Dr. Boydstun’s deposition alone makes clear that issues of fact remain concerning
both the actions he took and those he chose not to take the day he cared for Jeffrey. Because
entity appellees adopted Dr. Boydstun’s motion in full and argue that they could not owe a
duty if Dr. Boydstun did not owe a duty, the same underlying factual issues remain and are
further highlighted by the evidence produced during entity appellees’ motion proceedings.
Again, summary judgment is a remedy that should be granted only when there are no
genuine issues of material fact to litigate and when the case can be decided as a matter of
law. Durden, supra. Because genuine issues of material fact remain, we reverse and remand
18
the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment to Dr. Boydstun and entity appellees for
further proceedings. Additionally, because we reverse and remand both summary-judgment
orders for this reason, we need not address appellant’s remaining arguments for reversal.
Reversed and remanded.
GLADWIN and TUCKER, JJ., agree.
Jeremy B. Lowrey, for appellant.
Anderson, Murphy & Hopkins, L.L.P., by: Mark D. Wankum, for separate appellee Jacob
Boydstun, D.O.
Reece Moore McNeill Pendergraft, by: Paul D. McNeill and Dustin R. Darst, for separate
appellees UHS of Springwoods, LLC, d/b/a Springwoods Behavioral Health; Universal
Health Services, Inc.; and UHS of Delaware, Inc.
19