Davis v. Hoss, et al.
| Docket Number: | 2002-CA-01356-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-01-2004 Opinion Author: Waller, P.J. Holding: Affirmed in Part; Reversed and Remanded in Part |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Medical malpractice - Statute of limitations - Discovery rule - Employee status - Section 11-46-1(f) Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Cobb, P.J., Carlson and Dickinson, JJ. Judge(s) Concurring Separately: Easley, J. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J. Concur in Part, Dissent in Part 1: Easley, J. Concurs in Result Only: Graves, J. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - MEDICAL MALPRACTICE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-22-2002 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: W. Swan Yerger Disposition: Granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding the defendants were, at all times pertinent to the complaint, employees of UMMC and, thus, entitled to immunity pursuant to the MTCA. Case Number: 251-01-1197CIV |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Cindy Lou Davis and Roy Lee Davis |
G. KENNER ELLIS, JR. |
||
| Appellee: | Dr. Arthur A. Hoss, Dr. Michael C. Doherty, Dr. Samuel Norwood, III, Dr. Rameshkumar B. Patel, Dr. Robert Brent Harrison, Dr. William P. English, Dr. Luis A. Hashimoto, Dr. William D. Donald, Dr. Phillip J. Kregor, The University Hospitals and Clinics, University Orthopaedic Association, University Radiology Associates, PLLC, and University Surgery Associates, PLLC | JEFFREY RYAN BAKER WALTER T. JOHNSON |
|
|
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 - Employee status - Section 11-46-1(f) |
| Summary of the Facts: | Roy and Cindy Davis filed separate complaints alleging that, while Roy was a patient at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, the defendants failed to diagnose the multiple hip fractures he had sustained in a automobile accident. The named defendants were Arthur Hoss, M.D., Michael Doherty, M.D., Samuel Norwood, M.D., Rameshkumar Patel, M.D., Robert Harrison, M.D., William English, M.D., Luis Hashimoto, M.D., William Donald, M.D., Phillip Kregor, M.D., Art Leis, M.D., Electrodiagnostic Consultants, The University Hospital and Clinics, University Orthopaedic Association, University Radiology Associates, PLLC, University Surgery Associates, PLLC, and John Does No. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment which the court granted. The Davises appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: UMMC The Davises argue that the court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of UMMC, because the statute of limitations was tolled by UMMC’s concealment of Roy’s medical records until December 26, 2001, and his injury was latent and not discoverable until he had an opportunity to review his medical records. 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. Davis's injuries were not latent. He knew of UMMC's negligence following his surgery. His injury should have given rise to at least some knowledge of negligence even without the aid of his medical records. Therefore, the statute of limitations began to run on the date of the alleged tortious conduct, which was no later than March 11, 2000. Davis filed his complaint on October 18, 2001, which was after the one-year statute of limitations had expired. Issue 2: Physicians Davis argues that the physician defendants were not state employees at the time of his treatment at UMMC and therefore, summary judgment was inappropriate. Section 11-46-1(f) defines "employee" as any officer, employee or servant of the State of Mississippi or a political subdivision of the state, but specifically excludes an individual acting in the capacity of an independent contractor. Factors to consider in determining whether a faculty physician at UMMC is an employee or an independent contractor include the nature of the function performed by the employee; the extent of the state's interest and involvement in the function; the degree of control and direction exercised by the state over the employee; whether the act complained of involved the use of judgment and discretion; and whether the physician received compensation, either directly or indirectly, from the patient for professional services rendered. A judge must have discovery responses and produced discovery in applying these factors to the facts presented. Here, the judge erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the physician defendants, because the only evidence presented in support of these doctors' motion for summary judgment was two affidavits stating that the doctors were either residents, interns, or attending physicians and the court never allowed the parties to conduct discovery. The grant of summary judgment to the University Orthopedic Association, the University Radiology Associates, PLLC, and the University Surgery Associates, PLLC, is also remanded since the court did not allow the Davises to conduct discovery. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
