Univ. of Miss. Med. Ctr. v. Pounders


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2006-CA-01371-SCT
Linked Case(s): 2006-CA-01371-SCT ; 2006-CA-01371

Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 12-06-2007
Opinion Author: DICKINSON, J.
Holding: AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED AND RENDERED IN PART

Additional Case Information: Topic: Medical malpractice - Tort Claims Act - Expert testimony - M.R.E. 702 - Finding of fact - Substantial evidence - Standard of care - Prejudgment interest
Judge(s) Concurring: WALLER AND DIAZ, P.JJ., CARLSON, GRAVES AND LAMAR, JJ.; EASLEY, J. CONCURS IN PART WITHOUT SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION.
Dissenting Author : EASLEY, J. DISSENTS IN PART; SMITH, C.J. WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION
Dissent Joined By : RANDOLPH, J. JOINS SMITH, C.J.
Procedural History: Summary Judgment
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - MEDICAL MALPRACTICE

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 01-18-2006
Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court
Judge: Winston Kidd
Disposition: Found in favor of Appellee & awarded damages
Case Number: 251-99-632CIV

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI MEDICAL CENTER




ANASTASIA G. JONES JAMES A. BECKER, JR. COREY DONALD HINSHAW



 
  • Supplemental Brief

  • Appellee: MELBA POUNDERS GEORGE F. HOLLOWELL, JR.  

    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 - Tort Claims Act - Expert testimony - M.R.E. 702 - Finding of fact - Substantial evidence - Standard of care - Prejudgment interest

    Summary of the Facts: Melba Pounders filed suit against the University of Mississippi Medical Center alleging medical negligence. In a bench trial, the judge determined that UMC was negligent in its care of Pounders. The trial court found that prior to the incident, Pounders incurred only $38,000 in medical bills. After the incident, her medical bills increased to $152,000. In addition, her medical records indicate that she was in considerable pain following the incident, and that she was prescribed powerful pain medications. The court awarded Pounders damages in the amount of $150,000 plus legal interest from the date of judicial demand. UMC appeals.

    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Expert testimony UMC argues that the court erred in admitting the testimony of plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Pande. The only evidence offered by UMC to attack the basis of Dr. Pande’s opinion is the statement by its own expert, Dr. Pinkston, that medical journals have stated that aspiration of sterile water does not cause pneumonia. The trial judge, not finding this testimony persuasive, admitted Dr. Pande’s testimony. UMC also argues that, because Dr. Pande is not a pulmonologist, he should not be allowed to opine on matters concerning aspiration pneumonia. However, a witness need not be a specialist in any particular profession to testify as an expert. Dr. Pande testified he had the necessary knowledge to opine as to the diagnosis and causes of pneumonia. He further testified that, although he was not a pulmonologist, he was qualified as a neurologist, and that he had treated patients similar to Pounders. Given the specialized training and knowledge Dr. Pande acquired through his medical-school instruction and past experience with patients similar to Pounders, the trial court was not manifestly wrong in allowing Dr. Pande to offer this expert testimony pursuant to M.R.E. 702. UMC also argues that the court erred in relying solely on the expert opinion of Dr. Pande. Dr. Pande’s opinions were based upon facts in Pounders’s medical records. Dr. Pande gave reasonable opinions based upon these facts. Because the trial judge is the sole judge of the credibility of witnesses and may place whatever weight he feels appropriate on testimony, the court did not abuse its discretion by relying on Dr. Pande’s testimony. Issue 2: Finding of fact UMC argues that the court’s finding that Pounders was doing well and was about to be released from the hospital before the water-bottle incident is not supported by the medical records and thus not based on substantial evidence. The physician’s notes stated that Pounders was doing well. Pounders’s husband testified that he was present when rehabilitation staff visited Pounders to prepare for her transfer to a rehabilitation facility within a few days. The records include a nurse’s note to call the rehabilitation center to inform them that discharge consultations would need to be postponed due to the deterioration in Pounders’s condition. These facts amply support the trial court’s conclusion that Pounders was doing well. Issue 3: Substantial evidence UMC argues that the testimony of its expert, Dr. Pinkston, was ignored. However, because a judge may place whatever weight he or she chooses on expert testimony, the failure to acknowledge or rely upon the testimony of a particular expert is not error. Because there was conflicting testimony and evidence regarding the cause of Pounders’s pneumonia, the trial judge’s findings of fact will not be overruled, because they were not clearly erroneous. Issue 4: Standard of care UMC argues that, because the standard of care for an escort handling oxygen was never established, Pounders failed to establish a prima facie case of negligence. In most lawsuits against hospitals, the issue of negligence involves the determination of an applicable professional standard of care. In this case, however, the person alleged to have committed a negligent act was neither a doctor nor a nurse. The escort’s conduct must be evaluated using traditional negligence/reasonable-care standards. Furthermore, a hospital owes its patients a duty to exercise reasonable care. The trial judge easily could have concluded that UMC was aware of Pounders’s risk for aspiration. Pounders’s doctor noted in the medical records that Pounders should not receive anything by mouth. In addition, testimony of the escort established that he received no medical training and that he was not aware of Pounders’s condition. It is undisputed that actions of the escort caused Pounders to receive water orally, which was a direct violation of her doctor’s orders. Thus, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in finding that UMC failed to use reasonable care. Issue 5: Prejudgment interest UMC argues that the trial judge erroneously awarded pre-judgment interest. Pounders agrees that an award of prejudgment interest was improper. Accordingly, the award of prejudgment interest is reversed and rendered.


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