The Montana Supreme Court ruled on a complex case involving the estate of Terry Athy and multiple senior living facility defendants on January 13, 2026, in a decision that could affect how medical malpractice claims are handled in eldercare settings.
The case, *Estate of Terry Athy v. Edgewood* (2026 MT 3), involved Alex Athy, who sued both individually and as personal representative of his mother Terry Athy's estate. The defendants included an extensive network of Edgewood-related entities: EVI Kalispell, LLC; Edgewood Kalispell Senior Living, LLC; Edgewood Kalispell Memory Care; Edgewood Vista Kalispell; Edgewood REIT, Inc.; Edgewood Operations, Inc.; Edgewood Opco, LLC; Edgewood Healthcare; Edgewood Properties Management, LLC; Edgewood Properties, L.L.C.; Edgewood Properties, LLLP; and Edgewood Real Estate Investment Trust.
Justice Katherine Bidegaray delivered the opinion of the court in the appeal from the District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District in Flathead County. The lower court case, numbered DV-2023-1359(C), was presided over by Judge Heidi J. Ulbricht, who issued a March 2025 order dismissing Athy's civil claims against the defendants with prejudice.
The central legal questions before the Montana Supreme Court involved the proper characterization of Athy's claims and the applicable procedural requirements. The court examined whether the district court correctly construed Athy's claims as medical malpractice claims subject to Montana Code Annotated sections 27-2-205(1) and 25-3-106, which establish specific time limits and service of process requirements for such actions.
The case represents part of a growing body of litigation involving senior living facilities and the complex web of corporate entities that often operate them. The extensive list of Edgewood-related defendants illustrates the complicated corporate structure common in the eldercare industry, where operations, real estate, management, and healthcare services may be divided among multiple related entities.
Attorney Darin K. Westover of Glacier Law Firm, PLLC in Kalispell represented the appellants, while the defendants were represented by Sean Goicoechea and Katrina L. Feller of Moore, Cockrell, Goicoechea & Johnson, P.C., also based in Kalispell. The case was submitted on briefs on October 29, 2025, before the court issued its decision.
The procedural history indicates that the original lawsuit was filed in 2023, suggesting the claims may have involved care provided to Terry Athy before her death. The dismissal with prejudice in March 2025 would have prevented Athy from refiling the claims, making the appeal to the state supreme court a critical avenue for seeking relief.
Medical malpractice claims in Montana are subject to strict procedural requirements, including specific statutes of limitations and mandatory pre-litigation procedures. The dispute over whether Athy's claims properly fell within this framework versus other potential causes of action such as negligence, wrongful death, or elder abuse appears to have been central to the district court's dismissal.
The Montana Supreme Court's decision in this case could have implications for how similar claims against senior living facilities are categorized and prosecuted. With Montana's aging population and the increasing prevalence of senior care facilities, the proper legal framework for addressing alleged failures in care has become increasingly important.
The involvement of multiple corporate entities as defendants also raises questions about corporate liability in the senior care context. Modern senior living operations often involve complex arrangements between property owners, operators, healthcare providers, and management companies, creating potential challenges for plaintiffs seeking to identify the proper parties responsible for alleged harm.
The court's analysis of the time limits and service requirements applicable to Athy's claims could affect future litigation strategies in similar cases. Medical malpractice statutes typically include shorter limitation periods and more stringent procedural requirements than general negligence claims, making the characterization of claims against healthcare providers crucial for both plaintiffs and defendants.
The case also highlights the intersection between elder law and medical malpractice law in Montana. As senior living facilities provide increasingly complex medical and memory care services, the line between traditional negligence claims and medical malpractice actions may become more difficult to define.
While the full text of the Montana Supreme Court's opinion was not available, the case represents an important development in Montana elder law and could influence how similar disputes involving senior care facilities are handled in the future. The decision will likely be closely watched by attorneys practicing in both medical malpractice and elder law, as well as by senior care providers seeking guidance on their potential legal exposure.