Beverly Enterprises, Inc., et al. v. Reed


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2005-CA-01186-SCT

Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 07-26-2007
Opinion Author: SMITH, C.J.
Holding: Reversed and Remanded

Additional Case Information: Topic: Personal injury - Jury instructions - Exclusion of evidence - M.R.E. 401
Judge(s) Concurring: WALLER, P.J., CARLSON, DICKINSON, RANDOLPH AND LAMAR, JJ.
Dissenting Author : EASLEY, J.; DIAZ, P.J. WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION
Dissent Joined By : GRAVES, J.
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 03-08-2005
Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court
Judge: Winston Kidd
Disposition: Jury returned verdict in favor of Appellee & awarded Appellee damages
Case Number: 251-02-1791CIV

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: BEVERLY ENTERPRISES, INC. AND BEVERLY ENTERPRISES-MISSISSIPPI, INC.




LOUIS B. LANOUX MICHAEL O. GWIN



 

Appellee: BARBARA REED PHILIP W. THOMAS PIETER JOHN TEEUWISSEN  

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: Personal injury - Jury instructions - Exclusion of evidence - M.R.E. 401

Summary of the Facts: Sarah Lewis was admitted to the Beverly-Inglewood care facility. After ten months at Inglewood, Lewis was transferred to Compere Nursing Home at the request of her family. Following her death, Barbara Reed, Lewis’s sister, brought suit on behalf of her estate against Beverly Enterprises, Inc. (BEI), Beverly Healthcare Inglewood, and Beverly Enterprises–Mississippi, Inc., alleging negligence, abuse and neglect, and medical malpractice. The jury returned a general verdict in favor of the plaintiff in the amount of $400,000. At the conclusion of the punitive phase, the jury awarded Reed an additional $1.5 million dollars. The defendants appeal.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Jury instructions BEM and BEI argue that they should have been treated as separate entities instead of simply being labeled “the Defendants” in the instructions submitted to the jury. Defects in specific instructions will not mandate reversal when all of the instructions, taken as a whole fairly –although not perfectly–announce the applicable primary rules of law. Here, the jury was completely prohibited from finding one entity guilty without also holding the other liable. The claim against BEM was based upon its actions as owner and operator of Inglewood, while Reed’s case against BEI focused on the grandparent corporation’s alleged understaffing via the budget system. These are functions which give rise to separate theories of liability. The instructions that were given left no possibility for finding against one defendant but not the other, nor did they provide for an apportionment between the alleged tortfeasors. Not only were these instructions factually flawed and misleading, they were legally inaccurate. Issue 2: Exclusion of evidence Prior to her admission to Inglewood, Lewis initiated a products liability proceeding against Bayer Corporation. In this lawsuit, she alleged that an ingredient found in Alka Seltzer Plus, a drug manufactured by Bayer, caused the strokes that mandated her placement in the nursing home. The claimed damages included “pain, suffering” and “loss of enjoyment of life.” Lewis sought monetary relief for “[a]ssistance in day-to-day care,” and for “maintenance and assistance.” During trial, defense counsel attempted to question Reed about these similarities in damages. BEM and BEI argue that the court erred in refusing to allow defense counsel to do so. Evidence is relevant under M.R.E. 401 if it tends to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Information regarding the plaintiff’s condition prior to the alleged negligence would certainly be relevant in this instance to determine whether or not Lewis had indeed suffered new and distinct injuries at the hands of either BEM or BEI.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court