Stallworth v. Sanford, et al.
| Docket Number: | 2005-CA-00319-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-16-2006 Opinion Author: Smith, C.J. Holding: AFFIRMED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Medical malpractice - Designation of expert witness - Continuance - M.R.C.P. 56(f) Judge(s) Concurring: Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., and Carlson, J. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, Easley and Dickinson, JJ. Dissenting Author : Graves, J. Concurs in Result Only: Randolph, J. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - MEDICAL MALPRACTICE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-20-2004 Appealed from: Oktibbeha County Circuit Court Judge: Lee J. Howard Disposition: Granted Appellee's Motion for Summary Judgment Case Number: 2004-0260-CV |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Carolyn Stallworth |
LEONARD McCLELLAN, HERBERT LEE, JR. |
||
| Appellee: | Benjamin Sanford, M.D., Thomas Howard Pearson, M.D., and Tommy J. Cobb, M.D. | ELLEN ANN BLACK, JAMES A. BECKER, JR., ANASTASIA G. JONES, J. GORDON FLOWERS |
|
|
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 - Designation of expert witness - Continuance - M.R.C.P. 56(f) |
| Summary of the Facts: | After giving birth to stillborn twins, Carolyn Stallworth filed a complaint against Drs. Tommy J. Cobb, Thomas Howard Pearson, and Benjamin Sanford. The suit was dismissed without prejudice for failure to serve process within 120 days. Shortly after the dismissal, and more than two and one-half years after her twins’ stillbirth, Stallworth filed her second complaint. Dr. Sanford filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that Stallworth failed to comply with the notice requirements under section 15-1-36 and that the statute of limitations barred Stallworth’s claim. Drs. Pearson and Cobb joined Dr. Sanford’s motion and separately moved for summary judgement on the additional ground that Stallworth failed to respond to discovery requests, which was then joined by Dr. Sanford. The court granted summary judgment, and Stallworth appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Stallworth argues that the court incorrectly based the grant of summary judgment in part on Stallworth’s failure to timely respond to the doctors’ interrogatory request for designation of an expert witness. In order to survive a summary judgment motion, expert testimony is required to establish that a defendant failed to use ordinary skill and care. In the case at bar, the court held a hearing on the summary judgment motion on October 25, 2004. At the hearing, Stallworth did not provide an expert opinion to support her claims. Instead, in an affidavit opposing summary judgment, filed on October 22, 2004, Stallworth requested an additional thirty days to submit an expert’s affidavit. Stallworth argues the court abused its discretion in granting the summary judgment motion when the trial judge did not grant a continuance under M.R.C.P. 56(f). Rule 56(f) is not designed to protect litigants who are lazy or dilatory. Stallworth had ample time to locate a medical expert to assist with her claim and failed to do so. Therefore, the court’s grant of summary judgment to the doctors was proper. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
