Melvin v. Cleveland Nursing and Rehabilitation LLC
| Docket Number: | 2013-CA-02003-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-17-2015 Opinion Author: Irving, P.J. Holding: Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Jury instruction - Breach of standard of care Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Griffis, P.J., Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Carlton, Maxwell and Fair, JJ., Concur. James, J., Concurs in Part Without Separate Written Opinion. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 11-04-2013 Appealed from: BOLIVAR COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: ALBERT B. SMITH III Disposition: Found in favor of defendant/appellee Case Number: 2009-0107 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Maggie Melvin, Administratrix of the Estate of Jimmy Lee Melvin |
LEVI BOONE |
|
|
| Appellee: | Cleveland Nursing and Rehabilitation LLC | BRADLEY WITHERSPOON SMITH, GEORGE CLANTON GUNN IV | ||
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: | Personal injury - Jury instruction - Breach of standard of care |
| Summary of the Facts: | Maggie Melvin filed suit against Cleveland Nursing and Rehabilitation Center LLC, alleging that her husband’s “ulcer was proximately caused by CNRC’s failure to properly turn [Jimmy] and its failure to properly apply preventive ointment.” After a trial, the jury found in favor of CNRC. Melvin appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Maggie argues that Instruction D-22 is a misstatement of law because it “primarily deal[s] with medical procedures [performed by physicians and surgeons] and not the kind of care related to the treatment [provided] at nursing homes.” Maggie also argues that the instruction was unfairly prejudicial, and that it confused the jury, because it led the jury to believe that “nursing homes are immune to any and all negligent acts or omissions causing injury to residents.” While a litigant is entitled to have jury instructions that present his theory of the case, a trial judge may refuse a proposed jury instruction that is an incorrect statement of the law, repeats a theory covered in other instructions, or has no proper foundation in the evidence before the court. Maggie’s overarching argument seems to be that the jury had to have been confused because, after weighing the evidence, it did not find that CNRC had breached the standard of care in this case. However, it is the jury’s job to weigh the credibility of the evidence before it, and to decide which parts of conflicting testimony it will believe. The jury was entitled to return a verdict in favor of CNRC as long as the evidence supported the verdict. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
