Sheila Roberts on Behalf of Thomas Sam Edwards v. Nathan Hinkle, M.D.
Syllabus
This case involves a motion to dismiss for insufficiency of service of process and for expiration of the statute of limitations. The plaintiff filed this health care liability suit against a defendant physician. A process server went to the defendant's office to serve him, and after the process server was unable to locate the defendant, he served the summons and complaint on an employee of the hospital where the defendant's office was located. The defendant answered the complaint and raised the defense that there was insufficient service of process. More than a year after the complaint was filed, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss. The trial court granted the defendant's motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to properly serve the defendant and that the statute of limitations had run on the health care liability action. The plaintiff appeals. We affirm.
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that no physical space is required so long as it is open to the public
- recognizing, for similar reasons, that 501 does not helpfully define scope of general prohibitions contained in Title III of the ADA
- observing that question whether similar language in 302(a) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. 12182(a), prevents health insurance plans from capping benefits for particular disabilities \cannot be resolved by reference simply to the language of section 302(a)\
- noting that \[s]tate regulation of insurance is comprehensive and includes rate and coverage issues\ and explaining that the McCarran-Ferguson Act forbids construing a federal statute in a manner that would result in federal regulation of those state regulatory functions
- noting that “[s]tate regulation of insurance is comprehensive and includes rate and coverage issues” and explaining that the McCarran-Ferguson Act forbids construing a federal statute in a manner that would result in federal regulation of those state regulatory functions
- “[A] store is not required to alter its inventory in order to stock goods such as Braille books that are especially designed for disabled people.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.