Langley v. Miles, et al.
| Docket Number: | 2005-CA-00991-COA Linked Case(s): 2005-CA-00991-COA2005-CT-00991-SCT |
|
| Oral Argument: | 07-19-2006 | |
* 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: 10-03-2006 Opinion Author: CHANDLER, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Medical malpractice - Requests for admission - M.R.C.P. 36 - Standard of care - Expert witness Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., SOUTHWICK, IRVING, GRIFFIS, ISHEE AND ROBERTS, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): BARNES, J. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - MEDICAL MALPRACTICE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-02-2005 Appealed from: LEE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Sharion R. Aycock Disposition: SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS. Case Number: CV02-342(B)L |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | ABIGAIL LANGLEY, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH
MARTY LANGLEY AND KIM LANGLEY, PARENTS
AND NEXT FRIENDS |
JOHN W. CHRISTOPHER |
||
| Appellee: | JOHNNY F. MILES, M.D., CHESTER K. WHITE, M.D., SANDERS CLINIC FOR WOMEN, P. A. AND NORTH MISSISSIPPI MEDICAL CENTER, INC. | JOHN G. WHEELER |
|
|
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 - Requests for admission - M.R.C.P. 36 - Standard of care - Expert witness |
| Summary of the Facts: | Abigail Langley, through her parents and next friends Marty and Kim Langley, sued Drs. Johnny Miles and Chester White, Sanders Clinic for Women, P.A., and North Mississippi Medical Center, Inc. alleging medical malpractice. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants after denying Langley's motion to withdraw deemed admissions. The court alternatively granted summary judgment on the ground that Langley had failed to produce a medical expert. Langley appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The defendants served their requests for admissions on May 16, 2003. Pursuant to M.R.C.P. 36, Langley had thirty days in which to serve responses upon the defendants, or the admissions would stand admitted and the matters therein conclusively established. Langley did not serve the responses until October 9, 2003, almost five months after receiving the requests for admissions. The trial court held that the requests for admissions had been admitted due to Langley's failure to serve responses on the defendants within thirty days as provided by Rule 36(a). Langley argues that her counsel's cancer treatment constituted good cause for the failure to respond within the thirty day period. However, the court stated that it was not counting the time missed for counsel's illness against Langley and was only concerned with the period that had elapsed between counsel's return to work after Labor Day 2003 and the date the responses were served on October 9, 2003. Langley argues that, in ruling on a motion to withdraw deemed admissions, the trial court should be restricted from considering the entire length of the delay in responding or taking other action, but should only consider whether good cause existed for inaction during the period for responding allowed by Rule 36(a). The trial court was within its discretion in also considering counsel's neglect of the situation after his illness had resolved and he had returned to work. When a party is in default under Rule 36(a), the trial court and the requesting party should not have to wait indefinitely for the defaulter to serve the responses, to file a motion for an extension of time pursuant to Rule 6(b)(2), to file a Rule 36(b) motion to withdraw, or to take other action to attempt to rectify the default. Langley's counsel did nothing concerning the requests for admissions until after the defendants had served their motion to deem the requests admitted and for summary judgment. Thus, the court was within its discretion in denying Langley's motion to withdraw the deemed admissions based upon the inaction of Langley's counsel. With regard to Langley’s failure to produce a medical expert, Langley argues that because no supporting affidavits were attached to the defendants' motion for summary judgment, the defendants failed to meet their burden of persuasion and Langley had no obligation to produce any sworn medical evidence. Langley had the burden of proof of medical negligence at trial and, to withstand summary judgment, Langley needed to produce evidence of significant and probative value tending to show that a genuine issue of material fact existed. This would have required a sworn affidavit of an expert witness attesting to the standard of care and that the defendants' treatment of Langley breached the standard of care. Therefore, the trial court appropriately granted summary judgment. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
