Whittington v. Mason


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2003-CT-00700-SCT
Linked Case(s): 2003-CA-00700-COA ; 2003-CT-00700-SCT ; 2003-CA-00700-COA

Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 06-16-2005
Opinion Author: Dickinson, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Medical malpractice - Informed consent - Material risk - Expert testimony
Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., Carlson and Randolph, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J.
Dissenting Author : Easley, J.
Concurs in Result Only: Graves, J.
Procedural History: Directed Verdict
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - MEDICAL MALPRACTICE
Writ of Certiorari: Granted
Appealed from Court of Appeals

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 12-03-2002
Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court
Judge: W. Swan Yerger
Disposition: DEFENDANTS' AMENDED MOTION FOR JUDGMENT FOLLOWING ORDER OF MISTRIAL GRANTED. PLAINTIFFS' CASE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
Case Number: 251-99-479CIV

Note: The Supreme Court held that a plaintiff must produce expert testimony to establish the material risks and available alternatives of a medical procedure; therefore, it affirmed the court of appeals and the trial court. See original COA opinion at http://courts.ms.gov/Images/OPINIONS/CO20725.PDF

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: BENNIE SCOTT WHITTINGTON AND TINA S. WHITTINGTON




DOUGLAS G. MERCIER WILLIE T. ABSTON



 

Appellee: WOODIE L. MASON, M.D. AND HINDS UROLOGY CLINIC, P.A. GEORGE QUINN EVANS LYNDA CLOWER CARTER  

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 - Informed consent - Material risk - Expert testimony

Summary of the Facts: Bennie and Tina Whittington filed suit against Dr. Woodie Mason and the Hinds Urology Clinic, P.A., alleging various causes of action. An Agreed Order of Partial Summary Judgment was entered, leaving as the only relevant issue before the court the question of whether Dr. Mason obtained informed consent to perform a vasectomy. At trial, the Whittingtons did not call an expert to establish the material risks which should have been disclosed in order to obtain informed consent. After the jury failed to reach a verdict, the trial court directed a verdict for the defendants. The Whittingtons filed an appeal which was assigned to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals found that expert testimony is necessary to determine whether or not the loss of a testicle is a known risk in a procedure such as a vasectomy and affirmed the trial court. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Expert testimony is required to assist the finder of fact in determining whether a particular risk is material, requiring disclosure to the patient prior to a medical procedure. In the event of conflicting expert testimony, the finder of fact must evaluate the basis for each expert opinion and decide which is more credible. The record in this case indicates that there were several risks of the vasectomy which the Whittingtons claim were not disclosed. However, the Whittingtons produced no expert testimony to establish that these risks were material and should have been disclosed. Thus, the Whittingtons’ claim of lack of informed consent must fail. Since the jury had no reasonable basis to determine that material risks of a vasectomy included any of the undesired results of the procedure which the Whittingtons claim were not disclosed, any such determination by the jury would have been pure speculation. To the extent prior cases conflict with this decision, they are overruled.


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