Maxwell v. Baptist Memorial Hospital-DeSoto, Inc.
| Docket Number: | 2006-CA-00440-COA | |
| Oral Argument: | 03-21-2007 | |
* 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: 06-05-2007 Opinion Author: KING, C.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Wrongful death - Standard of acceptable professional practice - Expert testimony Judge(s) Concurring: LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WRONGFUL DEATH |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-16-2006 Appealed from: DeSoto County Circuit Court Judge: Robert P. Chamberlin Disposition: TRIAL COURT GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF BAPTIST MEMORIAL HOSPITAL-DESOTO, INC. AND ROBERT SCHRINER, M.D. Case Number: CV2002-0329CD |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | TAMMY MAXWELL, INDIVIDUALLY, AND FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE WRONGFUL DEATH
BENEFICIARIES OF KEITH W. MAXWELL,
DECEASED
|
DANA J. SWAN |
||
| Appellee: | BAPTIST MEMORIAL HOSPITAL-DESOTO, INC., AND ROBERT SHRINER, M.D. | WALTER ALAN DAVIS ( BAPTIST MEMORIAL HOSPITAL-DESOTO, INC.) S. DUKE GOZA (ROBERT SCHRINER, M.D.) DION JEFFERY SHANLEY (ROBERTSCHRINER, M.D.) |
|
|
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 - Standard of acceptable professional practice - Expert testimony |
| Summary of the Facts: | Tammy Maxwell, individually and for and on behalf of the wrongful death beneficiaries of Keith Maxwell, brought suit against Baptist-DeSoto, Dr. Steuer, Dr. Clark, Dr. Friedman, Dr. Schriner, and John Does 1-10, alleging gross negligence, res ipsa loquitor, and breach of contract. Drs. Steuer, Clark, and Friedman were dismissed at various times throughout the proceedings. Baptist-DeSoto and Dr. Schriner submitted motions for summary judgment. The court entered an order granting summary judgment to both Baptist-DeSoto and Dr. Schriner. Tammy appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | With regard to expert testimony, the trial court held that Tammy submitted only the written opinion of Dr. Stephen Hayne, the medical examiner who conducted the autopsy on Keith. The court concluded that Dr. Hayne’s opinion testimony failed to define the standard of care and who breached it and how it was breached. Tammy argues that the court failed to consider the expert report and deposition testimony of Dr. Hayne. Dr. Hayne’s opinion consisted of an unsigned report prepared by Tammy’s counsel and Dr. Hayne’s deposition testimony that he adopted the findings contained in that report. Generally, a plaintiff cannot prevail in a medical malpractice action without establishing, by expert testimony, the standard of acceptable professional practice; that the defendant physician deviated from that standard; and that the deviation from the standard of acceptable professional practice was the proximate cause of the injury of which plaintiff complains. Tammy argues that Baptist-DeSoto is responsible for her husband’s death because the nursing staff administered an overdose of Oxycontin to Keith in violation of the treating physician’s orders. Certainly, a lay person could understand, without benefit of expert testimony, that a hospital’s nursing staff has a duty to read a patient’s chart carefully and to follow the care instructions on that chart. Additionally, the actual administration of 640 mg. of Oxycontin within a seven-hour period, as opposed to the recommended administration of 160 mg. of Oxycontin every twelve hours, is evidence that establishes a breach of duty in a manner that does not require expert testimony. Under Tammy’s theory of the case, however, expert testimony would be necessary to establish causation because the hospital was able, through Dr. Schriner’s intervention, to resolve the overdose. The evidence, including Tammy’s own deposition testimony, indicated that Keith recovered from the overdose after Dr. Schriner treated him. Tammy’s theory of the case was that by failing to order baseline testing at the time Dr. Schriner began treating Keith, Dr. Schriner violated the applicable standard of care. She further argued that Dr. Schriner’s care was deficient because he followed clinical recommendations regarding the proper dosage of Narcan to treat the Oxycontin overdose rather than establishing the perimeters for treatment by a baseline test that tracked Keith’s individual reaction to the overdose. Without expert testimony explaining the necessity of such a test so that it created a duty, under the circumstances and taking into account the facilities available to Dr. Schriner at the time of treatment, it would not be clear to a jury that Dr. Schriner owed such a duty or that he breached that duty. Dr. Hayne clearly articulated that he was not testifying as an expert witness and that he had not been retained by Tammy as an expert because he chose not to be. At no time in his deposition testimony or in the report that he adopted in his deposition testimony did Dr. Hayne articulate an objective standard, either for Baptist-DeSoto or for Dr. Schriner. Therefore, the court properly granted summary judgment to both Baptist-DeSoto and Dr. Schriner. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
