Jackson Med. Clinic for Women, et al. v. Moore et al.
| Docket Number: | 1999-IA-01286-SCT Linked Case(s): 1999-IA-01286-SCT ; 1999-IA-01286-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 01-30-2003 Opinion Author: Cobb, J. Holding: Reversed and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Medical malpractice - Waiver of attorney-client privilege - M.R.E. 502(b) Judge(s) Concurring: Pittman, C.J., Smith, P.J., Diaz, Carlson and Graves, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): McRae, P.J. and Waller, J. Dissenting Author : Easley, J. Procedural History: Interlocutory Appeal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - MEDICAL MALPRACTICE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-19-1999 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: Tomie Green Disposition: Denied the Appellants' motion for summary judgment. Case Number: 95704CIV |
|
| Note: | Motion for Expedited Review filed by Appellee Grace Polles Moore is dismissed as moot. Order entered | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Jackson Medical Clinic for Women, P. A., Mercer Lee, III, M.D., Darden H. North, M.D. and Paracelsus Woman's Hospital, Inc. |
WHITMAN B. JOHNSON, III
THOMAS CREAGHER TURNER
JOSEPH L. McNAMARA |
||
| Appellee: | Grace Polles Moore and Robert Alan Moore, Individually and as Personal Representatives and Wrongful Death Beneficiaries of Robert Alan Moore, Jr., Deceased | DANA J. SWAN RICHARD B. LEWIS DENNIS C. SWEET, III |
|
|
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 - Waiver of attorney-client privilege - M.R.E. 502(b) |
| Summary of the Facts: | Grace Moore and Robert Moore, individually, and as personal representatives and wrongful death beneficiaries of Robert Moore, Jr., filed a complaint against the Jackson Clinic for Women, P.A., Dr. A. Mercer Lee, III, Dr. Darden North, and Paracelsus Woman’s Hospital alleging damages for the wrongful death of their stillborn child and for personal injuries sustained by themselves. Jackson Clinic filed a motion for summary judgment claiming that the action was barred by the statute of limitations. When the court denied the motion, Jackson Clinic filed a petition for interlocutory appeal with the Supreme Court which was denied. Jackson Clinic later filed another motion for summary judgment which was denied. Jackson Clinic then petitioned again for an interlocutory appeal, this time on the issue of waiver of attorney-client privilege, which the Supreme Court granted. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | During the course of this case, Jackson Clinic issued a subpoena duces tecum to Moore’s previous attorney, Michael Hartung, to produce all files, correspondence, documents, or other things related to the representation of the Moores in this matter. The Moores filed a motion to quash the subpoena duces tecum which the court granted. The question before the Court is whether Moore has effectively waived the attorney-client privilege by allegedly revealing otherwise privileged communications with her previous attorney. Pursuant to M.R.E. 502(b), a client has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent any other person from disclosing confidential communications made for the purpose of facilitating the rendition of professional services to the client. The client may effectively waive the privilege if he voluntarily introduces testimony relating to such communications. Jackson Clinic argues that Moore effectively waived the attorney-client privilege in her sworn affidavit and in her deposition when she voluntarily, knowingly, and without objections testified about efforts made by Hartung to obtain and have her medical records analyzed and advice he gave her regarding the viability of her cause of action. The Mississippi Supreme Court has not previously considered this issue, but courts in other states have held that the waiver exception is invoked only when the contents of the legal advice is integral to the outcome of the legal claims of the action. Because Moore specifically pled reliance on Hartung’s advice as an element of her defense and voluntarily testified regarding communications with Hartung, she has effectively waived the privilege as it relates to the testimony that she gave. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
