Estate of Finley, v. Beverly Health and Rehabilitation Serv., Inc., et al.
| Docket Number: | 2005-CA-00060-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 07-18-2006 Opinion Author: IRVING, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Wrongful death - Admissions - M.R.C.P. 36 - Summary judgment - Standard of care Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., SOUTHWICK, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE AND ROBERTS, JJ. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - TORTS-OTHER THAN PERSONAL INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-05-2004 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: W. Swan Yerger Disposition: SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS. Case Number: 251-00-001186CIV |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | THE ESTATE OF WILLIE FINLEY, SR., BY AND THROUGH VERRIE L. JORDAN, ADMINISTRATRIX, FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF THE ESTATE OF WILLIE FINLEY, SR., AND
FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF THE WRONGFUL DEATH BENEFICIARIES OF WILLIE FINLEY, SR. |
DOUGLAS BRYANT CHAFFIN, JAMES BURKE MCHUGH, KENNETH LUKE CONNOR, MICHAEL JAY FULLER |
||
| Appellee: | BEVERLY HEALTH AND REHABILITATION SERVICES, INC., BEVERLY ENTERPRISES-MISSISSIPPI, INC., DAVID BANKS AND CHARLIE R. SINCLAIR, JR. | MICHAEL O. GWIN, LOUIS B. LANOUX |
|
|
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 - Admissions - M.R.C.P. 36 - Summary judgment - Standard of care |
| Summary of the Facts: | Verrie Jordan, administratrix of her father, Willie Finley’s, estate, on behalf of the estate and Finley’s wrongful death beneficiaries, sued Beverly Health and Rehabilitation Services, Inc., David Banks, and Charlie Sinclair, Jr., alleging wrongful death, negligence, and medical malpractice, among other claims. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, and Jordan appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Admissions Jordan argues that the court erred in deeming defendants’ requests for admissions admitted. The purpose of M.R.C.P. 36 is to determine which facts are not in dispute. Jordan’s answer worked against the purpose of the rule. Her amended answer is difficult to follow and wavers from position to position. In her amended response, Jordan at one point admits that the caregivers did not deviate from the appropriate standard of care, states at another point that the caregivers did deviate (but were forced to do so by corporate policy), and finally states that she has insufficient information to either admit or deny the matter. Also of import is the fact that this jumbled response only came after the court had already ordered Jordan to provide a sufficient response to the request for admissions. If Jordan had specific instances where something had happened to Finley through an employee’s breach of the standard of care, then that incident should have been included in the response with an unequivocal statement that the caregiver had in fact breached the standard of care. The court was within its discretion in choosing to deem admitted such a non-responsive answer. Jordan also argues that the court erred in refusing to allow her to withdraw the admitted response and substitute sufficient answers. The analysis under Rule 36 requires that a court look at whether the presentation of the merits of the action will be subserved by allowing withdrawal and whether allowing withdrawal will cause prejudice to the party who obtained the admission. Under the circumstances of this case, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Jordan’s motion to withdraw the admitted requests. The motion came less than two weeks before trial was set to commence, and only after Jordan had already been given the opportunity to bring her responses into compliance with Rule 36. The court did not err in finding that, under those circumstances, the defendants would have been prejudiced by allowing Jordan to withdraw the admitted responses near the eve of trial. Issue 2: Summary judgment Jordan argues that the court erred in granting summary judgment based on the admitted responses, because “standard of care” is not defined in the request. Jordan never raised this issue with the court below, as no complaint was ever made that the meaning of “standard of care” in the request for admissions was ambiguous. In addition, it is clear that the concept of a “standard of care” has been applied in Mississippi in the negligence context. Therefore, there was a discernible meaning to the “standard of care” phrase in the request for admissions. Jordan also argues that the court erred in finding that Mississippi law does not recognize a cause of action against Banks and Sinclair, respectively the licensee and the administrator of Beverly Northwest. Jordan’s admissions conclusively found that none of the caregivers assigned to Finley had breached the standard of care. Therefore, no action can be maintained against Banks or Sinclair. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
