Sellars v. Walgreen Co.
| Docket Number: | 2006-CA-02146-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 01-08-2008 Opinion Author: IRVING, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Medical malpractice - Standard of care - Legal duty Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - MEDICAL MALPRACTICE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 11-21-2006 Appealed from: LEE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Paul S. Funderburk Disposition: SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED ON BEHALF OF WALGREEN Case Number: CV05-037 (PF)L |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | WOODROE WILSON SELLARS, AS A WRONGFUL DEATH BENEFICIARY OF AND ON BEHALF OF THE WRONGFUL DEATH BENEFICIARIES OF NETTIE MAE DILL, DECEASED |
JAMES D. MOORE |
|
|
| Appellee: | WALGREEN CO., D/B/A WALGREENS, AND JANE DOE | ROBERT K. UPCHURCH, JANELLE M. LOWREY | ||
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 - Standard of care - Legal duty |
| Summary of the Facts: | Woodroe Sellars, on behalf of himself and all of the wrongful death beneficiaries of Nettie Mae Dill, filed a complaint against Walgreen Co., alleging that an unknown Walgreens pharmacist negligently caused the death of Sellars’s mother, Dill, when the pharmacist refused to fill a prescription without payment. Walgreens moved for summary judgment, which the court granted. Sellars appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The trial court granted summary judgment on behalf of Walgreens because Sellars did not show any genuine issue regarding Walgreens duty and the applicable standard of care. Sellars argues that the two affidavits he provided set out the applicable duty to conform to the applicable standard of care for a reasonably prudent pharmacist under the same circumstances. One affidavit was filed by a registered and licensed pharmacist in the state of Arizona which offered only conclusory statements with no indication of the actual standard of care. Nothing in the affidavit addresses whether Walgreens owed a legal duty to Dill. Therefore, the affidavit was not sufficient to overcome summary judgment. Sellars’ second affidavit was filed by a physician in California and did not even mention or attempt to address the applicable standard of care. It is also insufficient to overcome summary judgment. In the absence of any issue of material fact regarding the legal duty or standard of care owed by Walgreens, summary judgment was properly granted. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
