Arnold appealed judgment to Grigsby in her medical malpractice suit. The Court affirmed. It held denial of Arnold’s motion for summary judgment was not reviewable as it was based on a finding that disputes existed as to material facts and an earlier reversal of summary judgment to Donald only established a dispute existed which needed to be resolved by a jury. It held the district court properly allowed a statement by an unknown nurse to Arnold’s husband that Arnold needed to be moved to another hospital or she would die as it was never communicated to Arnold and was only offered to explain why Arnold moved and thus was relevant to the issue of when Arnold should have known she had a claim against Grigsby. It affirmed as to sticky note stating Arnold’s lawyer told her not sign papers indicating she’s pay, that Arnold crossed out the payment provisions and that Arnold was considering suing as it was part of a business record, demonstrated Arnold’s sate of mind and was a statement of a party opponent. It affirmed excluding testimony by Grigsby and another doctor about their possible negligence as it was irrelevant to the issue of when Arnold should have known she had a claim and excluding evidence about how malpractice attorneys handle cases as the attorney had not been qualified as an expert. It affirmed denial of Arnold’s directed verdict motion as Arnold faced two sets of complications and went to two hospitals, was told she was fine then needed lifesaving surgery less than ten days later and suspected Grigsby was negligent all more than two years before she sued and this was sufficient to submit the case to a jury. It finally held that the jury instructions here quoted earlier opinions of the Court in this case and thus accurately stated the law.