Univ. of Miss. Med. Ctr. v. Johnson
| Docket Number: | 2005-CA-02191-COA Linked Case(s): 2005-CA-02191-COA ; 2005-CT-02191-SCT ; 2005-CT-02191-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-22-2007 Opinion Author: IRVING, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Medical malpractice - Hearsay - M.R.E. 803(3) - Findings of fact - Expert testimony - Damages - Reliability of experts Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., CHANDLER, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Dissenting Author : GRIFFIS, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - MEDICAL MALPRACTICE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-05-2005 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: Tomie Green Disposition: JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFFS FOR $534,025. Case Number: 251-00-1264CIV |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI MEDICAL
CENTER |
ANASTASIA G. JONES
MILDRED M. MORRIS
WALTER T. JOHNSON |
||
| Appellee: | GLORIA JOHNSON, ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF BRENDA EASTER, DECEASED | ELLIS TURNAGE |
|
|
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 - Hearsay - M.R.E. 803(3) - Findings of fact - Expert testimony - Damages - Reliability of experts |
| Summary of the Facts: | Gloria Johnson, Brenda Easter’s sister, filed a medical malpractice action against the University of Mississippi Medical Center, alleging that its doctors, nurses, and medical lab staff deviated from the standard of care by failing to diagnose Easter with pneumonia and that this failure and lack of treatment during Easter’s hospital stay resulted in Easter’s untimely death. The court entered a ruling in Johnson’s favor, awarding her $534,025. UMC appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Hearsay Sandra Russell, who was also a patient at UMC and shared a room with Easter, gave testimony about her conversations with Easter. UMC argues that the court erred in admitting this testimony regarding what Easter told Russell about Easter’s breathing problems was inadmissible hearsay that carried considerable weight with the trial court. The resolution of the issue of UMC’s negligence, vel non, does not depend on Russell’s testimony, as negligence on the part of a defendant in a medical malpractice action can only be established by medical expert testimony that the defendant failed to use ordinary skill and care. Since the medical testimony was sufficient to support the trial court’s judgment of liability against UMC, Russell’s testimony is essentially irrelevant. In addition, M.R.E. 803(3) clearly allows the admission of Russell’s testimony. Issue 2: Findings of fact UMC argues that the court made findings of fact which are not supported by the record. The record shows that there was no error in the findings made by the court (except for one which is not outcome determinative. Issue 3: Expert testimony UMC argues that the court ignored the testimony of its experts, who provided an explanation for the cause of Easter’s symptoms. Although the trial judge may not have accepted the findings of UMC’s expert witnesses, she did take them into consideration in reaching her decision. Issue 4: Damages UMC argues that the method that the court used to calculate Easter’s future earnings was error, because the calculation did not consider Easter’s reduced life expectancy because of her cardiac condition. Louis Smith, Ph.D. was accepted as an economic expert qualified to calculate the present value of future earnings. Based on his testimony, the court did not err in finding Easter’s future earnings to be $170,000. Issue 5: Reliability of experts UMC argues that the court erred in relying on the testimony of Easter’s experts because neither satisfies the Daubert standard for reliability. There is nothing in the record that shows that UMC made a Daubert objection at trial or in any motion to the testimony of either expert. Therefore, this issue is procedurally barred. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
