Univ. of Miss. Med. Ctr. V. Lanier
| Docket Number: | 2011-CA-00163-SCT Linked Case(s): 2011-CA-00163-SCT ; 2011-CA-00163-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 07-26-2012 Opinion Author: King, J. Holding: Reversed and Rendered |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Wrongful death - Expert testimony - M.R.E. 702 - Causation Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Carlson and Dickinson, P.JJ., Lamar, Kitchens, Chandler and Pierce, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: Randolph, J., Concurs in Result Only Without Separate Written Opinion Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WRONGFUL DEATH |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-02-2010 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: Malcolm Harrison Disposition: Verdict for the Appellees for $250,000. Case Number: 251-00-42CIV |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | University of Mississippi Medical Center |
STEPHEN P. KRUGER
KRISTOPHER ALAN GRAHAM |
||
| Appellee: | Barbara Lanier, Individually and on Behalf of the Heirs at Law of Darrell Gill, Deceased | ISAAC K. BYRD, JR. SUZANNE GRIGGINS KEYS |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Wrongful death - Expert testimony - M.R.E. 702 - Causation |
| Summary of the Facts: | In 1998, Barbara Lanier’s two-year-old son died while being treated at the University of Mississippi Medical Center. Lanier filed a complaint against UMC alleging medical malpractice and wrongful death. In 2008, the case was resolved by bench trial with a verdict in favor of Lanier of $250,000. UMC appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | UMC argues that the trial court erred by denying its motion for directed verdict for three reasons: Dr. Galvez was not qualified to testify; his opinion had no basis; and he failed to provide his opinions to a reasonable degree of medical probability. Lanier argues that Dr. Galvez was a qualified expert, and he established causation within a reasonable degree of medical probability. UMC stipulated that it had breached its duty to the child by giving him an incorrect dosage of topiramate. Thus, Lanier only had to prove causation. Generally, causation must be proven by expert medical testimony. The trial court must determine whether expert testimony is admissible under Dauber - the expert testimony must be relevant, meaning that it will aid the fact-finder, and the expert testimony must be reliable. M.R.E. 702 further provides that the testimony is admissible if it is based upon sufficient facts or data, the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case. The trial court accepted Dr. Galvez as an expert in the field of forensic pathology. By profession, Dr. Galvez is a retired psychiatrist, having begun his training in the late 1970s, and a retired pathologist, supervising or observing more than 4,000 autopsies during his career. During his coursework, Dr. Galvez took an elective in forensic pathology, but he failed the forensic pathology boards. Thereafter, he specialized only in clinical and anatomical pathology. Ninety-nine percent of his forensic exams stemmed from criminal cases, and ninety percent of those cases involved determining the cause of death for gunshot victims. Besides preparing for this case, Dr. Galvez had no knowledge or experience with Chediak-Higashi Syndrome. But Dr. Galvez had experience with topiramate, as he had prescribed it to several psychiatry patients. Dr. Galvez admitted that he had no training in hematology, oncology, pediatrics, pharmacology, toxicology, or chemistry. While a physician who is sufficiently familiar with the standards of a medical specialty, may testify as an expert, even though he does not practice the specialty himself, the physician must be familiar with the applicable standard by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education in accordance with Rule 702. During voir dire, it appeared that Dr. Galvez had some knowledge of topiramate and experience determining the cause of death based on autopsy results. Thus, as for Dr. Galvez’s qualifications, the trial court did not err by accepting Dr. Galvez as an expert witness. The expert opinion of a doctor as to causation must be expressed in terms of medical probabilities as opposed to possibilities. Dr. Galvez failed to testify within a reasonable degree of medical probability whether the child died of the topiramate or as a result of CHS complications. Dr. Galvez was totally unfamiliar with the accelerated phase of CHS, so much so that defense counsel had to explain the accelerated phase of the disease to him during cross-examination. Dr. Galvez also stated several times – during direct and cross-examination – that he will never know if the child died of the topiramate, because there was no toxicology report. Because Dr. Galvez’s opinion was not based on a reasonable degree of medical probability, the testimony was not sufficient to prove causation. The judgment is reversed and rendered. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
