Perkins v. Dauterive
| Docket Number: | 2002-CA-00951-COA | |
| Oral Argument: | 03-24-2004 | |
* This video is best viewed in the most current version of Google Chrome, Internet Explorer with Windows Media Player plug-in, or Safari (Mac Users). |
||
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-21-2004 Opinion Author: Chandler, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Wrongful death - Weight of evidence - Standard of care - Jury misconduct - M.R.E. 606 (b) Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Bridges and Lee, P.JJ., Irving, Myers, Griffis and Barnes, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WRONGFUL DEATH |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-08-2001 Appealed from: Hancock County Circuit Court Judge: Stephen Simpson Disposition: JUDGMENT ENTERED IN FAVOR OF DR. ALTON DAUTERIVE PURSUANT TO JURY VERDICT. Case Number: 96-0335 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Diane B. Perkins, Individually as Mother and Next Friend of Danielle Dawn Perkins and Stacey Renee Perkins, Minors |
DONALD C. DORNAN
WYNN E. CLARK |
||
| Appellee: | Dr. Alton Dauterive | ROGER T. CLARK WILLIAM E. WHITFIELD |
|
|
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 - Weight of evidence - Standard of care - Jury misconduct - M.R.E. 606 (b) |
| Summary of the Facts: | Diane Perkins, as mother and next friend of Danielle Perkins and Stacy Perkins, sued Dr. Alton Dauterive, alleging that Dr. Dauterive had committed medical malpractice that resulted in the wrongful death of her husband, Daniel Perkins. The jury returned a verdict for Dr. Dauterive, and Perkins appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Weight of evidence Perkins argues that the evidence of several breaches of the standard of care by Dr. Dauterive was so overwhelming that the verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence. To present a prima facie case of medical malpractice, a plaintiff, after establishing the doctor-patient relationship and its attendant duty, is generally required to present expert testimony identifying and articulating the requisite standard of care and establishing that the defendant physician failed to conform to the standard of care. In addition, the plaintiff must prove the physician's noncompliance with the standard of care caused the plaintiff's injury, as well as proving the extent of the plaintiff's damages. The main dispute of the experts in this case was over the correct preoperative approach, specifically, whether the standard of care required Dr. Dauterive to order an arteriogram. The experts generally agreed that the correct preoperative approach was dictated by the location of the entrance wound. If the entrance wound was located within one of the three surgical zones of the neck, then the standard of care required Dr. Dauterive to order a preoperative arteriogram in order to determine the correct first incision. But if the entrance wound was not in a surgical zone, then an arteriogram could be ordered at the surgeon's discretion. There was conflicting testimony about the boundaries of the surgical zones of the neck and about where the entrance wound was located on Perkins’ body. It is the province of the jury to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses and to resolve evidentiary conflicts by accepting or rejecting evidence. The evidence presented in this case was such that a reasonable juror could conclude that Perkins failed to prove Dr. Dauterive committed malpractice of her husband. Issue 2: Jury misconduct Perkins argues that, in a post-verdict interview, a juror in the minority alleged that a majority juror who was a nurse made a prejudicial statement to the jurors during deliberations. The statement was that a verdict for Perkins would cause Dr. Dauterive to be suspended or to lose his medical license. M.R.E. 606 (b) precludes a juror from testifying as to extraneous information or outside influence which he, himself, introduced to the jury. A juror may only testify as to extraneous information or outside influence introduced by other jurors or other sources, and may not testify as to how that information or influence affected the verdict. An investigation is warranted if there is sufficient evidence to conclude that good cause exists to believe that there was an improper outside influence or extraneous prejudicial information. Here, the court found that the information in the juror’s affidavit did not go to the material issue of the case, which was whether Dr. Dauterive breached the standard of care, and that it was not necessary to further inquire into whether the alleged extraneous information was considered by the jurors during deliberations. Considering all the facts, the court acted well within its discretion in determining that there was no reasonable possibility that the nurse's information swayed the other eight majority jurors to ignore the evidence legitimately presented case and to vote for Dr. Dauterive. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
