Blailock v. Hubbs, et al.
Docket Number: | 2003-CA-00587-SCT | |
Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-26-2005 Opinion Author: Dickinson, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Medical malpractice - Tort Claims Act - Discovery rule - Apportionment of fault - Section 85-5-7(7) - Informed consent - Negligence - Minor savings clause - Section 11-46-11(4) Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., Easley, Carlson and Randolph, JJ. Judge(s) Concurring Separately: Graves, J. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J. Concur in Part, Dissent in Part 1: Graves, J. Procedural History: Dismissal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - MEDICAL MALPRACTICE |
|
Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 01-06-2003 Appealed from: Pike County Circuit Court Judge: Mike Smith Disposition: Trial court dismissed the hospital from the lawsuit for failure of the plaintiffs to give the required notice under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act. Case Number: 98-0170-A |
Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
Appellant: | Tayler Blailock, a Minor, by and through his Parents and Natural Guardians, Linda Blailock and Clifford Blailock; Linda Blailock, Individually and Clifford Blailock, Individually |
BOBBY L. DALLAS, BRAD SESSUMS, WALTER C. MORRISON, IV, BRYAN PATRICK DOYLE |
||
Appellee: | David Hubbs, M.D., Randall Sisam, D.O., Women's Clinic of McComb, PLLC and Southwest Mississippi Regional Medical Center | WHITMAN B. JOHNSON, SHELLY G. BURNS, R. MARK HODGES, 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 - Tort Claims Act - Discovery rule - Apportionment of fault - Section 85-5-7(7) - Informed consent - Negligence - Minor savings clause - Section 11-46-11(4) |
Summary of the Facts: | The Blailocks brought against two doctors, a clinic and a governmental hospital. The judge granted the hospital’s motion to dismiss. At the trial’s conclusion, the jury rendered a verdict for the remaining defendants, and the court entered a judgment for the defendants. The plaintiffs appeal. |
Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Discovery rule The court held that the plaintiffs did not file their claim against the hospital within the one-year statute of limitation for filing a claim under the Tort Claims Act. The hospital was added as a defendant well after the one-year statute of limitations expired. However, the plaintiffs argue that the discovery rule tolled the running of the statute of limitations until they took the deposition of one of the doctors. The discovery rule will toll the statute of limitations until a plaintiff should have reasonably known of some negligent conduct, even if the plaintiff does not know with absolute certainty that the conduct was legally negligent. Here, the medical records themselves contain information that should have alerted the plaintiffs of the need to investigate potential claims against the hospital and doctors. The Blailocks do not argue that the hospital delayed in providing the records. Nor have they shown that they were prevented from obtaining the records or that the needed information was otherwise concealed. As such, the Blailocks cannot now claim to have exercised reasonable diligence in discovering the facts upon which they now base their claim of negligence against the hospital. Issue 2: Apportionment of fault The Blailocks argue that the court erred in failing to grant their directed verdict motion on the issue of fault allocation after the hospital was dismissed from the case because the defendant-doctors were allowed to point at the empty chair without offering expert testimony to show how the hospital breached the standard of care. There argument is contrary to the apportionment statute, section 85-5-7(7), which provides that absent tortfeasors who contributed to a plaintiff's injuries must be considered by the jury when apportioning fault. Issue 3: Weight of evidence The plaintiffs argue that Linda Blailock was not adequately informed of certain risks or procedures so as to give her informed consent, making the jury verdict contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence. In determining whether a causal connection exists between the breach of duty to adequately inform and the resulting injury, the objective test asks whether or not a reasonably prudent patient, fully advised of the material known risks, would have consented to the suggested treatment. In addition to producing expert testimony on the issue of informed consent, the doctors also described their own accounts of their disclosures to Mrs. Blailock. They also offered the health department pamphlet, which discussed the procedure, and the hospital's informed consent forms, all of which were signed by Linda Blailock. Whether there was adequate informed consent was a factual dispute to be settled by the jury. Both sides introduced enough credible evidence to support a jury finding. The jury’s finding was not against the weight of the evidence. Plaintiffs also argue that the overwhelming weight of the evidence supports a finding that the defendant-doctors were negligent in their treatment of Mrs. Blailock. Whether the defendant-doctors were negligent entailed a dispute in testimony between the parties. Both sides offered credible evidence. The jury had sufficient evidence before it to determine that the doctors were not negligent in their care of Mrs. Blailock. Issue 4: Minor savings clause The minor savings clause of the Tort Claims Act, section 11-46-11(4), was not in effect when the cause of action in this case accrued and lapsed. Therefore, the court did not err in holding that it would be improper to apply the minor savings clause to this cause of action. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court