Adkins v. Sanders, et al.
| Docket Number: | 2000-CT-01885-SCT Linked Case(s): 2000-CA-01885-COA |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-29-2004 Opinion Author: Smith, C.J. Holding: The Judgment of the Court of Appeals is Reversed, and the Judgment of the Lee County Circuit Court is Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Medical malpractice - Standard of care - Jury selection Judge(s) Concurring: Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., Carlson and Dickinson, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz and Randolph, JJ. Dissenting Author : Easley and Graves, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY Writ of Certiorari: Granted Appealed from Court of Appeals |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-26-2000 Appealed from: Lee County Circuit Court Judge: Thomas J. Gardner Disposition: JURY VERDICT FOR DEFENDANTS Case Number: 95-213-(F)L |
|
| Note: | The Supreme Court found that the trial court did not commit reversible error in denying plaintiff's jury instruction regarding the applicable standard of care nor did the trial judge commit reversible error in refusing to excuse Juror No. 22. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Samuel Adkins, Individually and on Behalf of the Statutory Wrongful Death Beneficiaries of Linda Kay Adkins, Deceased |
BO RUSSELL
WILLIAM B. GILL, III
RICHARD MASSIE MARTIN
DONNA S. CUMMINGS |
||
| Appellee: | Curren J. Sanders, M.D., and Sanders Clinic for Women, P.A. | DONNA M. BARNES L. F. SAMS, JR. JOHN G. WHEELER |
|
|
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 - Standard of care - Jury selection |
| Summary of the Facts: | After the death of his wife, Linda Adkins, Samuel Adkins, individually and on behalf of Linda’s wrongful death beneficiaries, filed a medical malpractice action against Curren J. Sanders, M.D., Sanders Clinic for Women P.A., and North Mississippi Medical Center. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants, and Adkins appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Standard of care Dr. Sanders argues that the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the trial court committed reversible error in refusing the plaintiff's jury instruction P-21, because the heightened standard of care contained in that instruction is inapplicable to this case. To have an instruction granted the proponent must show that the instruction is supported by the evidence and that the instruction is a correct statement of the law. Although P-21 was identical to a jury instruction previously approved by the Supreme Court in Lewis v. Soriano, 374 So.2d 829, 831 (Miss. 1979), that decision is inapplicable under the facts presented here. In Lewis, the physician was held to a standard of care expected of an orthopedic surgeon rather than a physician having a specialty in family practice, because the physician admitted that although he did not possess the training or skill of an orthopedic surgeon, he nevertheless undertook treatment of a complicated fracture and dislocation which required special training and skill not possessed by the defendant. Here, Dr. Sanders did not admit that he assumed responsibility as a specialist in another medical discipline, i.e., as Linda’s rheumatologist. Because the instruction instructed the jury that Dr. Sanders assumed the responsibilities of a rheumatologist and undertook treatment of Linda’s complicated pregnancy without having the necessary special training and skill, it was properly refused. Issue 2: Jury selection Dr. Sanders argues that the Court of Appeals adopted a jury selection standard contrary to Supreme Court authorities. Adkins exhausted his allowance of four peremptory challenges to remove individuals who had been patients of Dr. Sanders, had wives who had been patients of Dr. Sanders, or had close relatives who had been patients of Dr. Sanders. Following voir dire, Adkins made a general motion to remove any person who had been a patient to the extent that someone has had a baby. The trial court denied the motion, but the Court of Appeals reversed on that issue. When confronted with whether to accept the prospective juror as a juror, Adkins had two unused peremptory challenges. The failure to use these challenges to remove the juror from the panel bars this claim of error. Having exercised his peremptory challenges on jurors who were not challenged for cause, Adkins may not complain that the court erred in refusing to dismiss the juror for cause. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
