Neglen, et al. v. Breazeale, et al.
| Docket Number: | 2005-IA-01309-SCT Linked Case(s): 2005-IA-01309-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-02-2006 Opinion Author: WALLER, P.J. Holding: AFFIRMED AND REMANDED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Medical malpractice - Statute of limitations - Discovery rule - Section 15-1-36(2) Judge(s) Concurring: SMITH, C.J., COBB, P.J., DIAZ, EASLEY, CARLSON, GRAVES, DICKINSON AND RANDOLPH, JJ. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - MEDICAL MALPRACTICE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 01-21-2005 Appealed from: NESHOBA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Marcus D. Gordon Disposition: Denied Appellant's Motion for Summary Judgment Case Number: 04-CV-0053-NS-G |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | PETER NEGLEN, M.D.
AND SESHADRI RAJU, M.D. |
WHITMAN B. JOHNSON, III, LORRAINE W. BOYKIN |
||
| Appellee: | LILLIAN BREAZEALE, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS NEXT OF KIN OF DECEASED, JAMES C. BREAZEALE, AND ON BEHALF OF THE WRONGFUL DEATH BENEFICIARIES OF JAMES C. BREAZEALE | TED G. MEADOWS, TERRY L. JORDAN |
|
|
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 - Statute of limitations - Discovery rule - Section 15-1-36(2) |
| Summary of the Facts: | Lillian Breazeale, individually and on behalf of the wrongful death beneficiaries of James Breazeale, filed a complaint based on products liability and medical malpractice against Guidant Corporation, Inc., Endovascular Technologies, Inc., Peter Neglen, M.D., Seshadri Raju, M.D., and Greg Keller, Individually and as Sales Representative for Endovascular Technologies, Inc. Dr. Neglen and Dr. Raju filed a motion for summary judgment which the court denied. The Supreme Court granted Dr. Neglen and Dr. Raju permission to bring this interlocutory appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Section 15-1-36(2) provides that no claim in tort may be brought against a licensed physician for injuries or wrongful death arising out of the course of medical, surgical or other professional services unless it is filed within two years from the date the alleged act, omission or neglect shall or with reasonable diligence might have been first known or discovered. The discovery rule tolls 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. To benefit from the discovery rule, a plaintiff must be reasonably diligent in investigating his or her injuries. The discovery rule protects persons with latent injuries, that is, injuries which are not manifested or ascertainable within a reasonable time following the negligent act. A layperson undergoing a surgical procedure trusts in and relies on the instructions, professional expertise and guidance of his or her physician. Dr. Neglen and/or Dr. Ragu told Lillian that the complications arising from James’ surgery were ordinary risks that accompany any surgery. This statement raises a question of fact as to when the alleged negligence could have been discovered because, in fact, the two doctors were required to inflate artificially James’ blood vessels to insert the graft. Also, a question of fact exists as to whether the doctors should have abandoned the procedure when they determined that James’ blood vessels were brittle. This information was not given to Lillian. Since questions of fact exist, the doctors’ motion for summary judgment was properly denied. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
