Brumfield v. Langston
| Docket Number: | 2003-CA-00009-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-30-2004 Opinion Author: Bridges, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Medical malpractice - Limit on cross-examination - Cumulative testimony - M.R.E. 403 - Sufficiency of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, P.J., Myers, Chandler, Griffis, Barnes and Ishee, JJ. Dissenting Author : Irving, J. Dissent Joined By : King, C.J Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - MEDICAL MALPRACTICE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 11-12-2002 Appealed from: Pike County Circuit Court Judge: Keith Starrett Disposition: JURY VERDICT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT, LEDON LANGSTON, M.D. Case Number: 97-0068-A |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Cody Brumfield, a Minor, by and through His Mother and Next Friend, Joan Brumfield |
CARROLL RHODES |
||
| Appellee: | LeDon Langston, M.D. | JIMMIE B. REYNOLDS MICHAEL VERDIER CORY |
|
|
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 - Limit on cross-examination - Cumulative testimony - M.R.E. 403 - Sufficiency of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | On behalf of her son, Cody, Joan Brumfield sued Dr. LeDon Langston for medical malpractice. The jury returned a verdict for Dr. Langston. Cody appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Limit on cross-examination Cody argues that the court abused its discretion to admit or exclude evidence by preventing him from cross-examining Dr. Langston in the jury’s presence regarding mid-forceps delivery and altered medical records. The court correctly recognized that the line of questioning was irrelevant. It was irrelevant because Cody’s argument, according to the expert testimony of Dr. Sherman, was whether Dr. Langston should have delivered Cody by C-Section rather than some variation of vaginal delivery. The court correctly recognized that Dr. Sherman specifically testified that she had no criticism of the techniques used during delivery, including the application of forceps. Even if the excluded testimony was admitted the testimony would not have changed the outcome of the trial. Issue 2: Cumulative testimony Cody argues that because Dr. Langston testified, as an expert witness, that he was not negligent, Dr. Martin’s expert testimony to the same effect should be excluded as cumulative. M.R.E. 403 allows a judge to use his discretion to exclude evidence if the evidence causes needless presentation of cumulative evidence. The fact that a defendant who is able to testify as an expert offers the same testimony as his separate expert witness does not render the testimonial evidence needlessly cumulative. Issue 3: Sufficiency of evidence Cody argues that the evidence was insufficient. Dr. Langston’s testimony, as well as Dr. Martin’s was that Dr. Langston was not negligent. Moreover, portions of Dr. Sherman’s testimony suggested that Dr. Langston was not negligent in delivering Cody. Accordingly, a reasonable hypothetical juror heard sufficient evidence to determine that Dr. Langston was not negligent. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
