David Scoggins v. Baptist Memorial Hospital-Desoto
| Docket Number: | 2006-CA-02004-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-25-2007 Opinion Author: DIAZ, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Negligence - Admissions - M.R.C.P. 36 Judge(s) Concurring: SMITH, C.J., WALLER, P.J., EASLEY, CARLSON, GRAVES, DICKINSON, RANDOLPH AND LAMAR, JJ. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - TORTS-OTHER THAN PERSONAL INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-26-2006 Appealed from: DeSoto County Circuit Court Judge: Robert P. Chamberlin Disposition: Summary Judgment granted in favor of Appellee |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | DAVID SCOGGINS |
JOHN MICHAEL BAILEY |
|
|
| Appellee: | BAPTIST MEMORIAL HOSPITAL-DESOTO | WALTER ALAN DAVIS | ||
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: | Negligence - Admissions - M.R.C.P. 36 |
| Summary of the Facts: | David Scoggins is a resident of Memphis, Tennessee, who underwent a colonoscopy at Baptist Memorial Hospital-Desoto in Southaven. He filed a complaint against Baptist, the chief executive officer of Baptist, “Unknown Surgical Nurse One” and “Unknown Surgical Nurse Two,” alleging that a malfunction in a cauterizing machine caused him a damaged colon, a tear in his abdominal wall, respiratory arrest, an erratic heart rate, and an extended stay in intensive care on a ventilator, along with other injuries. The complaint was grounded solely upon a theory of negligence, not medical negligence. Baptist filed a motion for summary judgment which was granted based on the court’s determination that the requests for admission propounded by Baptist were admitted because there was no legitimate reason for failure to answer, and because counsel for Scoggins never filed a motion to withdraw the requests. Scoggins appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The requests for admission were sent to counsel for Scoggins on February 13, 2006. Accordingly, to avoid being deemed admitted under M.R.C.P. 36(b), counsel for Scoggins needed to answer within thirty days. One hundred forty-eight days later, counsel for Scoggins filed a motion to allow late filing of discovery requests. It is well-settled that a trial court has the discretion to allow admissions to be withdrawn even after they are admitted. In this case, the trial court determined that the requests were deemed admitted by operation of law after thirty days, which is in accord with Rule 36(a). This was not an abuse of the trial court’s discretion. Counsel for Scoggins knew or should have known the severe consequences of failing to timely respond. Scoggins argues that his late-filed motion, which consisted of responses to the interrogatories and requests for production, could be construed as a motion to withdraw the admissions pursuant to Rule 36(b). Yet the motion contains no reference to that rule of civil procedure nor any request to have the admissions withdrawn. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to construe this motion as one to withdraw the admissions. Scoggins also argues that the case should not be dismissed on the basis of a discovery violation. However, this case was not dismissed because of a discovery violation. Instead, the summary judgment ruling was based wholly upon the admissions of Scoggins, which in turn eliminated his ability to mount any factual or legal case against Baptist. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
