Duncan v. Verma
| Docket Number: | 2008-CA-01834-COA Linked Case(s): 2008-CA-01834-COA ; 2008-CT-01834-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-24-2009 Opinion Author: ISHEE, J. Holding: AFFIRMED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Medical malpractice - M.R.C.P. 56 - Breach of duty Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ROBERTS, CARLTON AND MAXWELL, JJ. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - MEDICAL MALPRACTICE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-02-2008 Appealed from: DeSoto County Circuit Court Judge: Robert P. Chamberlin Disposition: GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT Case Number: CV2001-01-70 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | SHAWN LEE DUNCAN AND APRIL
MARIE DUNCAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES AND
WRONGFUL DEATH BENEFICIARIES OF
ARTHUR EUGENE DUNCAN, DECEASED |
DANA J. SWAN |
|
|
| Appellee: | SATISH VERMA, M.D. | TOMMIE G. WILLIAMS | ||
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 - M.R.C.P. 56 - Breach of duty |
| Summary of the Facts: | After Arthur Duncan, a newborn, died, his parents, Shawn and April Duncan, individually and as personal representatives and wrongful death beneficiaries of Arthur, filed a complaint against Satish Verma, M.D. Dr. Verma, a licensed pediatrician, filed a motion for summary judgment. The court granted the motion, and the Duncans appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The Duncans argue that the trial court erred in holding as a matter of law that Dr. Verma, as treating physician, owed no duty to Arthur after consulting with another specialist on the care of his patient. To present a prima facie case of medical malpractice, an expert is needed to show how a breach of the physician's duty proximately caused the plaintiff's injury. The party moving for summary judgment under M.R.C.P. 56 bears the burden of persuading the trial court that no genuine issue of material fact exists, and that they are, based on the existing facts, entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Once Arthur began experiencing respiratory distress, Dr. Verma asked the nurses in the nursery to obtain a neonatology consult, which was a higher level of care for the infant. A short time later, a certified neonatal nurse practitioner was at Arthur’s bedside. The neonatology team assumed care of the infant at that point and executed all orders for his care. No evidence has been provided to show that Dr. Verma gave any further orders regarding the treatment of Arthur. Once the neonatology team accepted the consult, began actively treating Arthur, and assumed responsibility for his care, Dr. Verma no longer owed any duty to Arthur. The Duncans have failed to provide any evidence to support their argument that Dr. Verma owed a duty to Arthur after the neonatology team was consulted and began treatment of Arthur. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
