Daughtry v. Kuiper
| Docket Number: | 2001-CA-01758-COA Linked Case(s): 2001-CT-01758-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-29-2003 Opinion Author: King, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Medical malpractice - Sufficiency of evidence - Expert testimony - M.R.E. 702 - Query by jury - Error of judgment instruction Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., Bridges, Thomas, Lee, Irving, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Southwick, P.J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - MEDICAL MALPRACTICE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-20-2001 Appealed from: WARREN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Frank G. Vollor Disposition: JURY VERDICT FOR DEFENDANT, PLAINTIFF RECOVERS NOTHING. |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Patrick L. Daughtry, Jr |
JAMES W. NOBLES |
||
| Appellee: | Hendrik K. Kuiper, M.D. a/k/a Hendrick K. Kuiper, M.D | 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 - Sufficiency of evidence - Expert testimony - M.R.E. 702 - Query by jury - Error of judgment instruction |
| Summary of the Facts: | Patrick Daughtry filed a complaint against Dr. Hendrick Kuiper, alleging medical malpractice based on a breach of the standard of care for a minimally qualified physician practicing surgery. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Dr. Kuiper, and Daughtry appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Sufficiency of evidence Daughtry argues that Dr. Kuiper's admission that he had no reasonable explanation as to why he failed to remove the entire thyroid gland entitled him to a new trial. Dr. Kuiper testified that he had properly followed the standard of care and that he believed that he had removed both lobes of the thyroid at the time. Since there was a conflict in the evidence as to whether Dr. Kuiper had exercised reasonable care, a peremptory instruction was not appropriate. Issue 2: Expert witness Daughtry argues that the court erred in denying his motion to exclude the testimony and opinions of Dr. Kuiper's expert witness, because the expert’s opinions were mere speculation and not supported by any facts. Before expert testimony is admissible at trial, M.R.E. 702 requires that the witness be qualified as an expert and that the evidence be scientific, technical, or otherwise cover an area of specialized knowledge which will assist the trier of fact to understand or decide a fact in issue. Here, the witness had been qualified and accepted as an expert and the witness testified that he had reviewed the records and based his opinion on knowledge beyond that of a lay person. Therefore, the court properly allowed him to testify. Issue 3: Query by jury Daughtry argues that the court erred in its response to the jury regarding their query about the standard of care, because the court failed to state the applicable law. Because Daughtry did not object to the court's response, he is barred from raising this issue on appeal. Issue 4: Jury instruction Daughtry argues that the court erred in granting a jury instruction which was not supported by the evidence and was an improper statement of the law. Jury instructions are read as a whole to determine if the jury was properly instructed. Daughtry objected to instruction, because it used the element of good faith medical judgment contrary to another expert's opinion. Error of judgment instructions are improper, and the judge redacted the first part of the instruction pertaining to the objection. Any objection to the remainder of the instruction has not been preserved for appeal, because defense counsel waived objection to the remaining portion. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
