Hodges v. Lucas, et al.


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2002-CA-02108-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 10-12-2004
Opinion Author: Myers, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Medical malpractice - Citation of authority - Sanctions - Frivolous appeal - M.R.A.P. 38 - M.R.C.P. 11
Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Bridges and Lee, P.JJ., Chandler, Griffis and Barnes, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): Ishee, J.
Concurs in Result Only: Irving, J.
Procedural History: Summary Judgment
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - MEDICAL MALPRACTICE

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 10-28-2002
Appealed from: Leflore County Circuit Court
Judge: Betty W. Sanders
Disposition: DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED; MOTIONS FOR SANCTIONS DENIED
Case Number: 99-0027CI

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: Carolyn M. Hodges and J.R."Jack" Hodges




PRO SE



 

Appellee: John F. Lucas, Jr., M. D., Lucas Surgical Group, P.A., Joyce Bradshaw, M.D, and Leflore Pathology, LLP CHRISTOPHER WAYNE WINTER LEE DAVIS THAMES R. E. PARKER  

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: Medical malpractice - Citation of authority - Sanctions - Frivolous appeal - M.R.A.P. 38 - M.R.C.P. 11

Summary of the Facts: Carolyn and Jack Hodges filed separate complaints against Dr. John F. Lucas, Jr., Dr. John F. Lucas, III, Lucas Surgical Group, P.A., Greenwood Leflore Hospital, Dr. Joyce Bradshaw and Leflore Pathology, LLP, alleging that Dr. Lucas did not perform the appropriate surgical procedure on Mrs. Hodges and that Dr. Lucas did not obtain Mrs. Hodges’s informed consent to the surgery. Greenwood Leflore Hospital and Dr. John F. Lucas, III were dismissed from the case. Dr. Bradshaw and Leflore Pathology, LLP motioned the court for summary judgment. Dr. Lucas and Lucas Surgical Group, P.A. also filed a motion for summary judgment. The court granted the defendants’ summary judgment motions. Dr. Lucas, Lucas Surgical Group, P.A., Dr. Bradshaw and Leflore Pathology, LLP also filed motions for sanctions which were denied. Carolyn and Jack appeal, and Dr. Bradshaw and Leflore Pathology, LLP cross-appeal.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Summary judgment Carolyn and Jack argue that the court erred in granting the defendants’ summary judgment motions. However, they have provided no authority to support their claims. Failure to cite relevant authority obviates the appellate court's obligation to review such issues. Although the Hodgeses did file a reply brief containing some authorities that were cited by the appellees in their briefs, the Hodgeses should not be able to borrow or profit from the legal work of counsel for the appellees. Issue 2: Sanctions Dr. Bradshaw and Leflore Pathology, LLP filed a motion for sanctions because the Hodgeses fired their trial counsel shortly before the trial was scheduled. Dr. Bradshaw and Leflore Pathology, LLP argue that the Hodgeses’ counsel were fired for the purpose of delay and that the delay has caused them financial harm. Nothing in the record supports that claim. The court did not find that the Hodgeses requested a continuance for an improper purpose or to delay the trial. Issue 3: Frivolous appeal Dr. Bradshaw and Leflore Pathology, LLP ask the Court to impose sanctions according to M.R.A.P. 38. The definition of frivolous under M.R.A.P. 38 has the same meaning as it does under M.R.C.P. 11. A motion or pleading is considered frivolous under Rule 11 when the pleader or movant has no chance of success. The defendants were granted summary judgment because the Hodgeses did not establish the applicable standard of care by expert testimony, not because they did not have a potentially viable claim. As such, the appeal is not frivolous.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court