Venton v. Beckham
| Docket Number: | 2001-CA-01459-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-15-2003 Opinion Author: Easley, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Wrongful death - Challenges for cause - Designation of expert witness - Weight of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: Pittman, C.J., Smith, P.J., Waller, Cobb and Carlson, JJ. Dissenting Author : Graves, J. Dissent Joined By : McRae, P.J., and Diaz, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial & JNOV Nature of the Case: CIVIL - MEDICAL MALPRACTICE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-25-2001 Appealed from: Washington County Circuit Court Judge: W. Ashley Hines Disposition: The jury found for the Appellee, and the court denied the Appellant's JNOV. Case Number: CI-98-0099 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Pamela Venton and Michael Venton, Individually and on Behalf of the Wrongful Death Beneficiaries of Jonathan Venton, Deceased |
KIMBERLY GEORGETTE JONES
CHARLES VICTOR McTEER |
||
| Appellee: | Dr. James R. Beckham | CLINTON M. GUENTHER TOMMIE G. WILLIAMS WILLIE L. BAILEY |
|
|
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: | Wrongful death - Challenges for cause - Designation of expert witness - Weight of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Pamela and Michael Venton filed suit against Dr. James Beckham for the wrongful death of their unborn child, Jonathan. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Dr. Beckham. The Ventons appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Challenges for cause The Ventons argue that the exclusion of four African-American venire persons was irrational and on the basis of race, sex, and economic condition. Two were struck because of transportation problems, and two were struck because they had been patients at Dr. Beckham’s clinic and failed to disclose that their accounts had been in collection. The trial judge has discretion in determining whether to excuse a juror, and such decision will not be set aside unless it is clearly wrong. There is no constitutional right to have a jury mirror any particular community. The Ventons provide no case law that prohibits excusing a juror for cause on the basis of a lack of transportation and no evidence to show that they were prejudiced by striking the two women for cause. With regard to the two jurors who were struck because they did not disclose that their accounts had been in collection, the judge specifically remembered that Dr. Beckham’s counsel had made adequate inquiry concerning these two women but had not made inquiries regarding other venire persons similarly situated. Therefore, the court did not abuse its discretion in striking these jurors for cause. Issue 2: Designation of expert witness The Ventons argue that the court erred by denying them the opportunity to add another expert, a document expert from Georgia, to inspect Dr. Beckham’s medical records and a “note” written by a nurse who participated in Pamela’s care, because the request was made more than 10 months before the trial finally occurred in 2001. A trial court has the authority and a duty to maintain control of the docket and ensure the efficient disposal of court business and has considerable discretion in matters pertaining to discovery. Here, the court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the Ventons were aware of the documents since October 1998, no extension of the deadline for discovery or designation of an expert was requested by the Ventons, and there was no good cause shown for the delay. Issue 3: Weight of evidence The Ventons argue that the verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, because the verdict is unconscionable based on the testimony that the Ventons’ and Dr. Beckham’s experts allegedly were in agreement. The Ventons are confusing the applicable standard of care with a physician’s personal actions. At no time did the expert for Dr. Beckham ever state that Dr. Beckham’s actions fell below the applicable standard of care. To the extent that the evidence was conflicting in this case, the jury resolved all conflicts in testimony in Dr. Beckham’s favor. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
