| Alaska Supreme Court Opinions made Available byTouch N' Go Systems and Bright Solutions |
|
|
|
| Alaska Supreme Court Opinions made Available byTouch N' Go Systems and Bright Solutions |
|
|
|
|
You can search the entire site. or go to the recent opinions, or the chronological or subject indices. Adrienne Titus, Personal Representative of the Estate of Joel Titus v. State of Alaska, Department of Corrections (10/8/2021) sp-7558
Notice: This opinion is subject to correction before publication in the P ACIFIC REPORTER.
Readers are requested to bring errors to the attention of the Clerk of the Appellate Courts,
303 K Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501, phone (907) 264-0608, fax (907) 264-0878, email
corrections@akcourts.gov.
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALASKA
ADRIENNE TITUS, Personal )
Representative of the Estate of Joel )
Supreme Court Nos. S-17794/17813
Titus, ) (Consolidated)
)
Appellant, )
Superior Court No. 4FA-18-02180 CI
)
v. ) O
P I N I O N
)
STATE OF ALASKA, )
No. 7558 - October 8, 2021
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; )
JOHN DOES 1-6; and GOLDEN )
HEART EMERGENCY )
PHYSICIANS, PC, )
)
Appellees. )
)
)
ADRIENNE TITUS, Personal )
Representative of the Estate of JOEL )
TITUS, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. )
)
STATE OF ALASKA, )
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, )
)
Respondent. )
)
Appeal in File No. S-17794 and Petition for Review in File
No. S-17813 from the Superior Court of the State of Alaska,
----------------------- Page 2-----------------------
Fourth Judicial District, Fairbanks, Earl A. Peterson, Judge.
Appearances: Jeffrey J. Barber, Barber & Associates, LLC,
Anchorage, for Appellant/Petitioner. Laura L. Farley, Farley
& Graves, P.C., Anchorage, for Appellee Golden Heart
Emergency Physicians, PC. Aisha Tinker Bray, Assistant
Attorney General, Fairbanks, and Clyde "Ed" Sniffen, Jr.,
Acting Attorney General, Juneau, for Appellee/Respondent
State of Alaska.
Before: Bolger, Chief Justice, Winfree, Maassen, and
Carney, Justices. [Borghesan, Justice, not participating.]
WINFREE, Justice.
I. INTRODUCTION
The personal representative of an estate brought a medical malpractice
claim against a company that provided the decedent emergency room medical care
shortly before his death. The superior court granted summary judgment dismissing the
estate's claimagainst the company, reasoning that the estate's board-certified expert was
not qualified to testify about the relevant standard of care. We reverse the superior
court's decision.
II. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
A. Facts
Joel Titus was arrested and taken to Fairbanks Correctional Center (FCC)
in September 2016. Titus's blood alcohol content upon arrival was .390%. Titus was
transported to Fairbanks MemorialHospital, whereanemergency roomdoctor evaluated
him then discharged him to FCC.
Titus had a seizure the next day. He was transported back to the hospital,
where another emergency room doctor administered care. The doctor ordered a blood
test and gave Titus fluids and medication for alcohol withdrawal syndrome. Titus was
-2- 7558
----------------------- Page 3-----------------------
discharged to FCC with follow-up instructions to FCC for treating his alcohol
withdrawal symptoms.
FCC staff began administering the care instructed by the emergency room
doctor; Titus was housed alone in an observation cell, and staff checked on him
"approximately every 30 minutes." Titus was found unresponsive on the cell floor that
evening. After FCC staff were unable to revive Titus, he was taken to the hospital and
pronounced dead. An autopsy revealed that cardiovascular disease likely caused the
death but that "[t]he possibility of an alcohol withdrawal seizure" could not be
"completely excluded."
B. Proceedings
Adrienne Titus, personal representative of Titus's estate, sued the State of
Alaska, Department of Corrections and Golden Heart Emergency Physicians, PC, the
company providing emergency room services at the hospital, alleging, among other
things, medical malpractice by the Golden Heart doctors. Golden Heart moved for
summary judgment, relying on the affidavit of a doctor board certified in emergency and
addiction medicine stating that the doctors had not breached the relevant standard of
care. The estate opposed summary judgment with Dr. Lisa Lindquist's affidavit stating
that the Golden Heart doctors breached the standard of care. The Department did not
oppose or otherwise respond to Golden Heart's summary judgment motion.
Dr. Lindquist is not an emergency room doctor or certified in emergency
medicine, but according to her affidavits she has experience and training relevant to the
underlying facts and circumstances of this malpractice action. She was certified by the
American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology; she learned about alcohol withdrawal in
medical school; she participated in emergency medicine clinical rotations; she was the
current psychiatry department chair at an Anchorage medical center; and she had
"experience working in hospital emergency rooms as a physician to provide emergency
-3- 7558
----------------------- Page 4-----------------------
room treatment for alcohol withdrawal patients" and as a consultant to emergency room
physicians.
Dr. Lindquist stated that all physicians learn basic treatment of alcohol
withdrawal:
All physicians throughout the scope of their medical
school education receive specific education on the treatment
of alcohol withdrawal. In the scope of medical education this
is provided within classroom education and within the scope
of clinical rotations within emergency medicine, psychiatry,
family medicine and internal medicine. . . .
Thestandardoftreatment ofseverealcohol withdrawal
is independent of the location or medical specialty wherein
the patient first presents to medical care.
Dr. Lindquist also described having experience working alongside emergency room
doctors:
In my current practice . . . I continue to interface directly with
physicians and patients within the emergency department.
Emergency Medicine physicians are able to consult me for
assistance in the management of patients being admitted for
the treatment of alcohol withdrawal. . . .
. . . I have experience working in hospital emergency
rooms as a physician to provide emergency room treatment
for alcohol withdrawal patients. I am knowledgeable about
the standard of care specific to providing emergency room
medical treatment of alcohol withdrawal patients.
The superior court granted Golden Heart summary judgment. The court
explained that because "the events giving rise to this claim concern . . . the decedent's
care at [a] hospital emergency room by emergency room physicians, the appropriate
standard of care is the degree of care normally exercised by an emergency room
physician." The court held that Dr. Lindquist was not qualified to opine on the relevant
standard of care because "the issue . . . is the standard of care for an emergency room
-4- 7558
----------------------- Page 5-----------------------
physician; a psychiatrist, who is not board[]certified as an emergency room physician,
is not qualified to give testimony about the relative standard of care for an emergency
room physician." The estate appealed the grant of summary judgment to Golden Heart.
After summary judgment was granted to Golden Heart, The estate sought
a motion in limine prohibiting the Department from introducing any evidence "blaming,
inferring, or implying that . . . Golden Heart . . . did anything improper." The estate
argued that the Department was estopped from asserting Golden Heart's negligence
because the Department had failed to oppose summary judgment and it would be
"manifestly unfair . . . to allow [the Department] to blame the empty chair . . . to avoid
liability." The Department responded that it was permitted to seek fault allocation to
Golden Heart under Alaska's statutory comparative fault framework. The superior court
denied the estate's motion in limine, and the estate petitioned for review of the court's
order. We granted the petition for review and consolidated the matters.
III. DISCUSSION
This appeal's resolution turns on the superior court's summary judgment
decision. We review grants of summary judgment de novo and draw all factual
1 A superior court's decision whether to
inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.
admit or exclude expert testimony generally is reviewed for abuse of discretion, but
evidentiary conclusions turning on questions of law are reviewed de novo.2
In a medical malpractice action a defendant can make an initial showing
that an element of the plaintiff's prima facie case is unsatisfied by submitting an expert
1 Rockstad v. Erikson, 113 P.3d 1215, 1219 (Alaska 2005).
2 Ayuluk v. Red Oaks Assisted Living, Inc., 201 P.3d 1183, 1192 (Alaska
2009).
-5- 7558
----------------------- Page 6-----------------------
3
affidavit stating the defendant's conduct complied with the relevant standard of care.
Once this initial showing is made, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show summary
judgment is not appropriate by producing expert testimony creating a dispute of material
4
fact about whether defendant's actions fell below the applicable standard of care.
Evidence proffered at the summary judgment stage must be admissible.5 It is insufficient
to show a dispute of fact about an expert's qualification; the party must affirmatively
show that the expert is qualified.6 If affidavit testimony is insufficient to resolve any
factual disputes related to expert qualification, a court may hold a preliminary hearing
on the issue of expert qualification before deciding the summary judgment motion.7
3 See Kendall v. State, Div. of Corr., 692 P.2d 953, 955 (Alaska 1984).
4 See id.; Greywolf v. Carroll, 151 P.3d 1234, 1241 (Alaska 2007).
5 Greywolf, 151 P.3d at 1241.
6 See Alaska R. Evid. 104 (describing witness qualification as preliminary
M.JUR.2D
question of admissibility); 31A A Expert and Opinion Evidence § 42 (2002)
("[Q]ualification of a witness as an expert is a preliminary question for the trial court to
decide before receiving or admitting the witness's testimony." (footnote omitted)).
7 Cf. Cikan v. ARCO Alaska, Inc., 125 P.3d 335, 339 (Alaska 2005) (noting
court must resolve statute of limitations factual disputes in preliminary hearing); see also
Alaska R. Evid. 101(c)(1) (stating rules of evidence do not apply to "determination of
questions of fact preliminary to admissibility of evidence when the issue is to be
determined by the judge under Rule 104(a)").
-6- 7558
----------------------- Page 7-----------------------
A. Statutory Interpretation 8
Two statutes are particularly relevant to reviewing whether the superior
court correctly concluded that Dr. Lindquist was not qualified to provide the necessary
expert witness testimony to oppose Golden Heart's summary judgment motion. The
plaintiff in a medical malpractice claim is required to prove the standard of care
applicable to the defendant, among other things, under AS 09.55.540(a):
In a malpractice action based on the negligence or wilful
misconduct of a health care provider, the plaintiff has the
burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence
(1) the degree of knowledge or skill possessed
or the degree of care ordinarily exercised under
the circumstances, at the time of the act
complained of, by health care providers in the
field or specialty in which the defendant is
practicing.
Experts qualified to testify about the relevant standard of care in a professional
malpractice action are limited by AS 09.20.185(a):
In an action based on professional negligence, a person may
not testify as an expert witness on the issue of the appropriate
8 We use a sliding scale approach when interpreting statutes: "[T]he plainer
the language of the statute, the more convincing contrary legislative history must be."
In re Nora D. , 485 P.3d 1058, 1064 (Alaska 2021) (alteration original). We generally
give effect to all of a statute's "provisions, so that no part will be inoperative or
superfluous, void or insignificant." Homer Elec. Ass'n v. Towsley , 841 P.2d 1042, 1045
(Alaska 1992) (quoting Alascom, Inc. v. N. Slope Borough, Bd. of Equalization , 659 P.2d
1175, 1178 n.5 (Alaska 1983)). And we generally presume that the legislature intended
to refer to two different concepts when it used two different terms in a statute. Alaska
Spine Ctr., LLC v. Mat-Su Valley Med. Ctr., LLC , 440 P.3d 176, 182 (Alaska 2019)
("Principles of statutory construction mandate that we assume the legislature meant to
differentiate between two concepts when it used two different terms.").
-7- 7558
----------------------- Page 8-----------------------
standard of care unless the witness is
(1) a professional who is licensed in this state or
in another state or country;
(2) trained and experienced in the same
discipline or school of practice as the defendant
or in an area directly related to a matter at issue;
and
(3) certified by a board recognized by the state
as having acknowledged expertise and training
directly related to the particular field or matter
[ ]
at issue. 9
When AS 09.20.185 was considered by the House Judiciary Committee,
legislators discussed the proposed bill's effect, including concerns about limiting the
number of experts available to testify in professional negligence cases. One
representative mentioned the difficulty of getting experts to testify in rural Alaska.10
Another mentioned the problem of experts within the same field being hesitant to testify
against one another.11 Addressing these concerns, a bill sponsor explained that the bill
required only that an expert "be in the ballpark of the qualifications of that professional
trained in the same basic disciplines."12 The sponsor further explained that the bill
requires that "if a professional is going to be judged, then a professional of at least
9 Thelegislatureenacted AS09.20.185in 1997, approximately 30 years after
AS 09.55.540 first required plaintiffs to prove the standard of care in a medical
malpractice action. See ch. 26, § 15, SLA 1997; ch. 49, § 1, SLA 1967.
10 Minutes, H. Jud. Standing Comm. Hearing on H.B. 58, 20th Leg., 1st Sess.
Tape 97-28, Side A, No. 2370 (Feb. 26, 1997) (statement of Rep. Ethan Berkowitz).
11 Id. at Side B, No. 0090 (statement of Rep. Eric Croft).
12 Id. at Side B, No. 0000 (statement of Bill Sponsor Rep. Brian Porter).
-8- 7558
----------------------- Page 9-----------------------
someone in the same general area knowledge and background" should testify about the
13
standard of care.
We first recognized the relationship between AS 09.20.185 and
AS 09.55.540 in Hymes v. DeRamus, describing the issue of expert witness qualification
in a medical malpractice case as whether the proposed expert could "provide testimony
relevant to the standard of AS 09.55.540(a)(1) and [whether the proposed expert met] the
requirements of AS 09.20.185(a) as to licensure, training and experience, and
certification directly relevant to an area of practice at issue in this case."14 And we most
recently explained it in Beistline v. Footit, titling a section: "The Sufficiency Of Expert
Testimony In A Medical Malpractice Case Depends On Both AS 09.20.185 (Expert
Witness Qualifications) And AS 09.55.540 (Burden Of Proof)."15
Dr. Lindquist meets the requirements of AS 09.20.185(a)(1) as a licensed
Alaska physician. Dr. Lindquist qualifies under AS 09.20.185(a)(2)-(3) if she is "trained
and experienced" in "an area directly related to a matter at issue" and "certified by a
board recognized by the state as having acknowledged expertise and training directly
related to the . . . matter at issue." The parties dispute the meaning of "matter at issue"
in this case. The estate asserts that the matter at issue is "medical treatment for alcohol
withdrawal provided at a hospital emergency room" and contends that "Dr. Lindquist is
highly qualified in the area of alcohol withdrawal treatment and severe alcohol
withdrawal treatment." Golden Heart responds that because "Golden Heart is comprised
of emergency medicine physicians, and because the field or matter at issue in this case
13 Id. at No. 0341 (statement of Bill Sponsor Rep. Brian Porter).
14
222 P.3d 874, 886 (Alaska 2010).
15
485 P.3d 39, 43 (Alaska 2021).
-9- 7558
----------------------- Page 10-----------------------
is emergency medical care performed by an emergency room physician at a hospital
emergency department, the [e]state was required to present expert testimony from a
board-certified emergency medicine physician."
Dr. Lindquist clearly was not certified in the same field as the defendants,
but the superior court did not address whether Dr. Lindquist's certification was "directly
16 The court effectively held, as a matter of law, that
related to the . . . matter at issue."
only a board-certified emergency room doctor could satisfy AS 09.20.185(a)(3)'s
requirement that the witness be "certified by a board recognized by the state as having
acknowledged expertise and training directly related to the particular field or matter at
issue." This conclusion assumes that "field" and "matter at issue" refer to the same
concept. Although we have not precisely defined what "matter at issue" means in this
17
statute, we presume the legislature did not intend it to mean the same thing as "field,"
and the relevant legislative history does not persuasively indicate otherwise.18
19 in the medical malpractice context refers
We hold that "matter at issue"
to the underlying circumstances of the medical event or treatment giving rise to the
medical malpractice action. Whether an expert's training, expertise, or certification is
"directly related" therefore varies depending on the facts and circumstances of the
alleged malpractice. This flexible standard is appropriate because the qualification
16 See AS 09.20.185(a)(3).
17 Alaska Spine Ctr., LLC v. Mat-Su Valley Med. Ctr., LLC, 440 P.3d 176, 182
(Alaska 2019) ("Principles of statutory construction mandate that we assume the
legislature meant to differentiate between two concepts when it used two different
terms.").
18 See supra notes 10-13 and accompanying text.
19 AS 09.20.185(a)(3).
-10- 7558
----------------------- Page 11-----------------------
statute addresses medical malpractice scenarios ranging from very simple to very
specialized matters. It recognizes that physicians with different qualifications than the
defendant may, given the specific facts and circumstances of the case, nonetheless have
knowledge about the standard of care in the defendant's field.
For example, a plaintiff who alleges an emergency room doctor was
negligent in suturing a wound may be able to survive summary judgment using the
testimony of a board-certified pediatrician who attests that pediatricians regularly suture
wounds, that the proper procedure for sutures is taught to all physicians in medical
school (and therefore the standard is the same for all physicians), and that the sutures
20 On the other hand, a plaintiff alleging a neurosuregon
were improperly done.
negligently performed specialized brain surgery may need the testimony of a board-
certified neurosurgeon because no other fields of medicine are directly related to the
matter at issue. These examples illustrate that whether a proposed expert's expertise,
training, and certification are directly related to a matter at issue will depend on a variety
of factors that trial courts should consider. Considerations include: underlying medical
conditions; the medical care or treatment provided (or not provided); the clinical setting;
whether the medical condition or treatment is general knowledge to all or most
physicians or a specialized procedure limited to a smaller set of physicians; the extent to
which the medical care provided involved assessment and treatment of multiple issues
20 See Hall v. Frankel , 190 P.3d 852, 858 (Colo. App. 2008) ("[The court's]
understanding is that when we look at these specialties, it's like the branching of a tree.
There are certain things that [all specialty medical fields] have in common. There are
certain basic medical notions that people know regardless of where they branched to.
And if this is something that they all know, . . . people who are in other specialties [can]
testify as long as the nature of their testimony is [']you need to know that because you're
a doctor.['] " (quoting trial court's oral explanation of medical expert qualification)).
-11- 7558
----------------------- Page 12-----------------------
simultaneously; and whether there otherwise is a foundation for the expert's opinion
about the standard of care for providers in the defendant's field.
This flexible interpretation of "matter at issue" is consistent with the
relevant legislative history of AS 09.20.185. A bill sponsor stated that experts need only
"be in the ballpark of the qualifications of that professional" who allegedly committed
malpractice and that the expert should have the "same general area knowledge and
21 And this interpretation is consistent with AS 09.55.540, which provides
background."
that a medical malpractice plaintiff must prove "the degree of knowledge or skill
possessed or the degree of care ordinarily exercised under the circumstances, at the time
of the act complained of, by health care providers in the field or specialty in which the
defendant is practicing." Finally, this interpretation is consistent with Beistline 's
instruction that "[t]he sufficiency of expert testimony in a medical malpractice case
depends on both AS 09.20.185 . . . and AS 09.55.540," without reading "matter at issue"
out of AS 09.20.185.22
Beistline is instructive. Beistline sought medical attention at an emergency
room for "generalized weakness, ataxia[,] . . . confusion," and other symptoms.23
Beistline was taking a variety of prescription medications "per her own regimen."24
Dr. Footit, a board-certified internist treating Beistline, "found it difficult to diagnose the
21 Minutes, H. Jud. Standing Comm. Hearing on H.B. 58, 20th Leg., 1st Sess.
Tape 97-28, Side B, Nos. 0000, 0341 (Feb. 26, 1997) (statement of Bill Sponsor Rep.
Brian Porter).
22 485 P.3d 39, 43 (Alaska 2021).
23 Id. at 40.
24 Id.
-12- 7558
----------------------- Page 13-----------------------
25
causes of her problems." Dr. Footit ordered a hold on her medications and planned
26
several procedures to correct her sodium levels. Beistline experienced a seizure a few
27
days later. She sued Dr. Footit and the hospital, alleging that the seizure was the result
of his decision to take her off of her prescription medications and that this decision fell
28
below the applicable standard of care.
Dr. Footit moved for summary judgment, supported by an affidavit from
29
a licensed and board-certified internal medicine physician. Dr. Footit's expert attested
that Dr. Footit met the applicable standard of care and "acted as a reasonable and prudent
30 31
internist." Beistline responded with a pharmacist's affidavit. The pharmacist attested
that following proper weaning protocols for Beistline's medications was the standard of
care and that "these protocols 'should be general knowledge to a board[-]certified
internal medicine physician, but, if not, then . . . there should have been a consult
between the internist and the hospital's pharmaceutical d epartment.' "32 The superior
court granted summaryjudgment to Dr. Footit, concluding that "[a] doctor ofpharmacy's
expert testimony is insufficient to rebut the testimony of a board-certified internist about
25 Id. at 40-41.
26 Id. at 41.
27 Id.
28 Id.
29 Id.
30 Id.
31
Id. at 42.
32 Id.
-13- 7558
----------------------- Page 14-----------------------
33
thestandard ofcarerequiredofaboard-certified internist practicinginternal medicine."
Beistline appealed.
On review we noted that the proffered expert pharmacist may have been
trained and experienced in an area " 'directly related to . . . a matter at issue' for purposes
34 but we upheld the superior court's grant of summary judgment
of AS 09.20.185(a)(2),"
because the pharmacist's "affidavit testimony . . . was insufficient to create a genuine
issue of material fact on that subject."35 The pharmacist expressly "concede[d] that he
does not know whether the withdrawal protocols he describe[d], known to a pharmacy
expert, are also 'general knowledge to a board[-]certified internal medicine physician,' "
and summary judgment was therefore proper.36 Importantly we did not accept the
superior court's conclusion that a defendant in a medical malpractice case is entitled to
summary judgment "if the plaintiff fails to present expert testimony from an expert who
is board[]certified in [the] same field as the physician who committed the alleged
malpractice who can establish the standard of care."37
Although we provided some guidance about the proper interpretation of
AS 09.20.185 in relation to AS 09.55.540, Beistline 's core holding was that the
pharmacist's affidavit was insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact about the
proper standard of care for "health care providers in the field or speciality in which the
defendant [was] practicing" - because the affidavit expressly disclaimed such
33 Id.
34 Id. at 44.
35 Id. at 45-46.
36 Id. at 45.
37 Id. at 43.
-14- 7558
----------------------- Page 15-----------------------
knowledge - "[r]egardless of how we interpret[ed] the board-certification requirement
38
of AS 09.20.185(a)(3)."
And a review of our older case law indicates we have
implicitly understood "matter at issue" to include consideration of the underlying
39
medical conditions or treatment giving rise to the malpractice claim.
B. Whether Dr. Lindquist Is Qualified
In light of our statutory interpretation, it was error to not qualify
Dr. Lindquist as an expert in this case simply because she is not board certified in
emergency medicine. Dr. Lindquist - a licensed physician under AS 09.20.185(a)(1)
-explained that alcohol withdrawal procedures are general knowledge to all physicians
because the standardized treatment is taught in medical school. Dr. Lindquist meets the
requirement of AS 09.20.185(a)(3) because a variety of fields of medicine (including
psychiatry, for which Dr. Lindquist is board certified) directly relate to the matter at
issue. And Dr. Lindquist's attestation that she was "train[ed] on the management of
alcohol withdrawal, . . . includ[ing] the management of severe alcohol withdrawal
symptoms," in medical school and that she has "experience working in hospital
emergency rooms as a physician to provide emergency room treatment for alcohol
withdrawal patients," satisfies AS 09.20.185(a)(2)'s requirement. Dr. Lindquist
38 Id. at 45.
39 See Hymes v. DeRamus, 222 P.3d 874, 878-79, 885-87 (Alaska 2010)
(holding rheumatologist was qualified to testify about standard of care applicable to
correctional medical providers treating inmate's arthritis and psychiatrist could be
qualified to testify about connection between depression and hypothyroidism, two
conditions the plaintiff allegedly experienced, if board certified in psychiatry); Ayuluk
v. Red Oaks Assisted Living, Inc., 201 P.3d 1183, 1189, 1192 (Alaska 2009) (holding
that former Alaska Board of Nursing member was qualified to testify about standard of
care applicable to certified nursing assistants because she worked as nurse for many
decades and served on board regulating certified nursing assistants).
-15- 7558
----------------------- Page 16-----------------------
therefore is qualified under AS 09.20.185 to give expert testimony about the standard of
care applicable to "health care providers in the field . . . in which [the Golden Heart
40
doctors were] practicing."
Whether the doctors treating Titus complied with the standard of care thus
is in dispute, and it was error to grant summary judgment to Golden Heart. Because it
was error to grant summary judgment to Golden Heart, the superior court's later order
regarding allocation of fault to Golden Heart is moot. We therefore do not reach the
issue raised in the petition for review.
IV. CONCLUSION
Thesuperior court's decision isREVERSEDand this case is REMANDED
for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
40 See AS 09.55.540(a)(1).
-16- 7558
 |
| Case Law Statutes, Regs & Rules Constitutions Miscellaneous |
|
