Northrop v. Hutto
| Docket Number: | 2007-CA-00355-COA Linked Case(s): 2007-CT-00355-SCT ; 2007-CA-00355-COA ; 2007-CT-00355-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-10-2008 Opinion Author: ROBERTS, J. Holding: Reversed and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Medical malpractice - Prima facie case Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER AND GRIFFIS, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): ISHEE, J. Dissenting Author : CARLTON, J., with separate written opinion. Dissent Joined By : BARNES, J. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - MEDICAL MALPRACTICE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-19-2007 Appealed from: Harrison County Circuit Court Judge: Lisa P. Dodson Disposition: CIRCUIT COURT GRANTED DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Case Number: A2401-200081 |
|
| Note: | The Supreme Court reversed this opinion. See SCT opinion at: http://www.mssc.state.ms.us/Images/Opinions/CO55454.pdf | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | ABNER K. NORTHROP, JR. |
FLOYD J. LOGAN |
||
| Appellee: | DAVIS HUTTO, STANLEY TURNER, MEMORIAL HOSPITAL AT GULFPORT, AND THOMAS LETARD, M.D. | PATRICIA K. SIMPSON, ROSS DOUGLAS VAUGHN, FREDRICK B. FEENEY, MARGARET FRANKLIN PUCKETT MCARTHUR |
|
|
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 - Prima facie case |
| Summary of the Facts: | Abner Northrop, Jr. sued Memorial Hospital at Gulfport, anesthesiologist Dr. Thomas LeTard, and nurse anesthetists Davis Hutto and Stanley Turner for medical malpractice due to surgical complications. MHG, Dr. LeTard, Hutto, and Turner successfully moved for summary judgment. Northrop appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Northrop argues that the circuit court erred when it granted summary judgment. To prove a prima facie case of medical malpractice, a plaintiff must demonstrate a duty to conform to a standard of care; a breach of that duty; proximate cause; and as a result, the plaintiff suffered damages. Generally, expert testimony is necessary to demonstrate these elements. Considered in the light most favorable to Northrop, his expert’s testimony established that the defendants bore the duty to exercise overall vigilance and monitoring of the IV lines and the extremity in which the lines were inserted. It is undisputed that no one observed Northrop’s arm during the entire surgical procedure because it was covered. When considered in the light most favorable to Northrop, his expert’s testimony demonstrated that the defendants should have visualized and felt Northrop’s arm at some point during the procedure. There is no dispute that Northrop was injured because of the compartment syndrome, which was caused by the extravasation. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Northrop, Northrop demonstrated that, but for the defendants’ failure to monitor the IV fluids, Northrop’s injuries due to compartment syndrome would have been avoided or at least mitigated. Reasonable jurors could differ on the factual questions at issue. Under the circumstances, summary judgment is inappropriate. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
