Estate of Perry v. Mariner Health Care, et al.
| Docket Number: | 2004-CA-00810-COA Linked Case(s): 2004-CA-00810-COA |
|
| Oral Argument: | 09-29-2005 | |
* 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: 01-10-2006 Opinion Author: LEE, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Wrongful death - Dismissal of claim - M.R.A.P. 3(c) - Standard for negligence - Spoliation - Medical history Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., MYERS, P.J., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES AND ISHEE, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WRONGFUL DEATH |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-18-2003 Appealed from: Grenada County Circuit Court Judge: Joseph H. Loper Disposition: JURY VERDICT FOR DEFENDANTS Case Number: 2001-0485CVL |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | THE ESTATE OF VADER I. PERRY BY AND
THROUGH BETTY RAYBURN, ADMINISTRATRIX
OF THE ESTATE OF VADER I. PERRY, FOR THE
BENEFIT OF THE ESTATE OF VADER I. PERRY,
AND FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF THE
WRONGFUL DEATH BENEFICIARIES OF VADER I.
PERRY |
KENNETH LUKE CONNOR, BRIAN LEE THOMPSON, E. B. CHILES,
RICHARD ERIC CIRCEO |
||
| Appellee: | MARINER HEALTH CARE, INC. F/K/A MARINER POST-ACUTE NETWORK, INC.; NATIONAL HERITAGE REALTY, INC.; GRANCARE, INC.;AND EVERGREEN HEALTHCARE, INC. | DENISE WESLEY, L. CARL HAGWOOD, MICHAEL O. GWIN, J. COLLINS WOHNER, SENITH C. TIPTON, WILLIAM W. MCKINLEY |
|
|
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 - Dismissal of claim - M.R.A.P. 3(c) - Standard for negligence - Spoliation - Medical history |
| Summary of the Facts: | Vader Perry, a seventy-four year old woman, was admitted to the Grenada Health and Rehabilitation Center (nursing home) by her physician for rehabilitation services after a hospitalization. After she passed away, Perry’s estate, by and through her daughter, Betty Rayburn, administratrix of Perry’s estate, for the use and benefit of the estate of Perry, and for the use and benefit of the wrongful death beneficiaries of Perry, filed a complaint against Mariner Health Care, Inc. (formerly known as Mariner Post-Acute Network, Inc.); National Heritage Realty, Inc.; Grancare, Inc.; Evergreen Healthcare, Inc.; J.D. Lee; and Delores Goode. The complaint alleged negligence, medical malpractice, gross negligence, fraud and breach of fiduciary duty and also included claims for wrongful death and survival and requested compensatory and punitive damages. Goode filed a motion to dismiss. The court granted Goode’s motion to dismiss but gave Rayburn thirty days to amend her complaint against Goode to assert with specificity any allegations of individual wrongdoing by Goode. Rayburn never filed an amended complaint. Mariner Post-Acute Network, Inc., filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. An order was entered by the bankruptcy court confirming Mariner’s reorganization plan. Incorporated in the order was a stipulation exempting certain actions from the bankruptcy court’s discharge, including one styled, “The Estate of Vader I. Perry by and through Betty Rayburn, Administratrix.” Prior to trial, Mariner filed a motion in limine to bar Rayburn from pursuing the wrongful death claim, arguing that because the wrongful death beneficiaries were not mentioned in the bankruptcy stipulation, their claims were discharged. The court agreed and precluded Rayburn’s wrongful death claim on behalf of the wrongful death beneficiaries. The jury returned a verdict for Mariner. Rayburn appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Claims against Goode Rayburn argues that the court erred in dismissing her claims against Goode. There is no merit to this issue as Rayburn had the opportunity, prior to trial, to dispose of this matter, either through amending her complaint or even filing an interlocutory appeal. Rayburn also failed to include Goode’s name on her notice of appeal. Pursuant to M.R.A.P. 3(c), the court’s review is limited to those parties named in an appellant’s notice of appeal. Issue 2: Standard for negligence Rayburn argues that the court erroneously instructed the jury on the standard for negligence. Standard of care instructions have been approved in comparable cases. Furthermore, during trial, Rayburn questioned a number of witnesses on the nursing home’s standard of care. Taken as a whole, the instructions fairly announce the law of the case. Issue 3: Wrongful death claim Rayburn argues that the court erred in dismissing her wrongful death claim, because she, as the personal representative, is entitled to pursue the wrongful death claim and she was expressly named in the bankruptcy stipulation. The crux of the issue concerns the stipulation which Rayburn’s attorneys entered into on behalf of a number of their tort claimants. The stipulation only excepts “The Estate of Vader I. Perry by and through Betty Rayburn, Administratrix” from the effect of the bankruptcy proceeding. Nowhere in this stipulation is an exception “for the use and benefit of the wrongful death beneficiaries of Vader I. Perry.” Therefore, this issue is without merit. Issue 4: Spoliation Rayburn argues that the court erred in shifting the burden of proof on spoliation to her and in not instructing the jury on Mariner’s failure to produce portions of Perry’s nursing home care plan. Rayburn did not offer a spoliation instruction for the trial court to review, rather she asked the trial court, only after all the jury instructions were ruled upon, to issue an instruction. Furthermore, it is unclear from Rayburn’s brief what specific pages are missing from the documents. The court did not abuse its discretion in finding that there was not any showing that there was any misconduct or intent or fraudulent designs on the part of the nursing home or Grenada Health and Rehab to dispose of the records. Issue 5: Medical history Rayburn argues that the court abused its discretion in admitting evidence regarding Perry’s past drug and alcohol abuse and evidence suggesting that Rayburn stole Social Security funds. In determining whether to allow evidence of Perry’s past drug and alcohol abuse, the court found that her past medical history was relevant to her treatment at the nursing home. Furthermore, Rayburn testified as to Perry’s past medical history on direct examination and her past drug and alcohol abuse on cross-examination without any further objection. Thus, the court did not abuse its discretion in allowing testimony of Perry’s past medical history. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
