Brooks, et al. v. Roberts, et al.
| Docket Number: | 2002-CA-01610-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-16-2004 Opinion Author: Graves, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Medical malpractice - Failure to designate expert witness - Motion for reconsideration - M.R.C.P. 59(e) Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., Easley, Carlson, Dickinson and Randolph, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - MEDICAL MALPRACTICE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-24-2002 Appealed from: Lincoln County Circuit Court Judge: Mike Smith Disposition: Granted summary judgment. Case Number: 00-325 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Nancy Caroline Young Brooks, Hugh H. Young and Eddie M. Young, Jr., and All Wrongful Death Beneficiaries of Dorothy Aline Young, Deceased |
JOE DALE WALKER |
||
| Appellee: | Dr. James F. Roberts, Dr. Wells Wilson and King's Daughters Hospital | JACQUELINE GRACE HARPER STUART BRAGG HARMON DEANNE BRODRICK SALTZMAN JOHN MICHAEL COLEMAN JOSEPH L. McNAMARA MATHEW D. MILLER J. ROBERT RAMSAY STUART BRAGG HARMON |
|
|
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 - Failure to designate expert witness - Motion for reconsideration - M.R.C.P. 59(e) |
| Summary of the Facts: | A complaint was filed alleging that the mother of Nancy Brooks, Dorothy Young, had died as a result of medical malpractice. The complaint named Dr. James F. Roberts, Dr. Wells Wilson, and the hospital where Mrs. Young was treated, King’s Daughters Hospital, as defendants. After Brooks failed to supply a name of an expert witness, Dr. Roberts made a Motion to Compel Discovery. Dr. Roberts never received any information regarding Brooks’ medical expert, and he filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. The court entered an Order Compelling Discovery giving Brooks 45 days to offer the evidence. When the period expired without any evidence offered by Brooks, the court entered an Order and Judgment of Dismissal. Brooks appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Brooks argues that her great delay in procuring an expert witness should be excused, because the expert she attempted to retain repeatedly delayed signing prepared affidavits and eventually rebuffed her completely. From the very moment the suit was filed it was known that an expert witness would be needed to survive summary judgment, because the general rule in a medical malpractice action is that negligence cannot be established without medical testimony that the defendant failed to use ordinary skill and care. There were roughly twenty months between the time Dr. Roberts propounded discovery requesting expert witness information and the day summary judgment was entered. The order which Brooks violated was already a 45-day extension on designating a witness. After that deadline was passed, it took Brooks 90 days to file a motion to set aside the summary judgment, a motion which still did not designate an expert witness. Litigants must understand that their cases are at risk without good faith compliance with the orders of the trial courts. The summary judgment grant in favor of Dr. Roberts is affirmed. Brooks also argues that the court erred in denying her motion to set aside the judgment of dismissal and motion for rehearing. A motion for reconsideration is to be treated as a post-trial motion under M.R.C.P. 59(e). In order to succeed on a Rule 59(e) motion, the movant must show an intervening change in controlling law, availability of new evidence not previously available, or need to correct a clear error of law or to prevent manifest injustice. Brooks fails to show any of these things. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
