McDaniel v. Pidikiti


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2008-CA-01550-COA
Linked Case(s): 2008-CA-01550-COA ; 2008-CT-01550-SCT
Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 12-01-2009
Opinion Author: ROBERTS, J.
Holding: AFFIRMED
Additional Case Information: Topic: Medical malpractice - Expert testimony - M.R.E. 702 - Additional time - M.R.C.P. 56(c) & (f)
Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, GRIFFIS, ISHEE, CARLTON AND MAXWELL, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): BARNES, J.
Procedural History: Summary Judgment
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - MEDICAL MALPRACTICE
Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 08-18-2008
Appealed from: Alcorn County Circuit Court
Judge: Thomas J. Gardner
Disposition: GRANTED DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Case Number: 2000-138-G-A
  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: MARGERY MCDANIEL, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OF AND WRONGFUL DEATH BENEFICIARIES OF TERRELL J. MCDANIEL, DECEASED




 DANA J. SWAN



  
  • Appellant #1 Brief
    		•
    Appellee: DR. NANNI PIDIKITI TOMMIE GREGORY WILLIAMS, JR., 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 - Expert testimony - M.R.E. 702 - Additional time - M.R.C.P. 56(c) & (f)
    Summary of the Facts: Margery McDaniel brought a suit for medical malpractice against Magnolia Regional Health Center and Dr. Nanni Pidikiti. The trial court dismissed the cause of action against Dr. Pidikiti because McDaniel failed to designate an expert witness within a court-ordered deadline. McDaniel appeals.
    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Expert testimony McDaniel argues the trial court erred when it struck her expert testimony. Expert testimony should only be admitted if it withstands the two-prong inquiry under M.R.E. 702. First, the witness must be qualified by virtue of his or her knowledge, skill, experience or education. Second, the witness's scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge must assist the trier of fact in understanding or deciding a fact in issue. There is no requirement that an expert in a medical-malpractice case be a specialist in the same area as the doctor about whom the expert is testifying in regard to the standard of care. However, a medical expert must establish that he is sufficiently familiar with the defendant doctor’s specialty in order to testify about the standard of care owed to the plaintiff/patient. In order to testify, McDaniel's expert must have been familiar with the standard of care to which a cardiologist is held. He is trained as a general surgeon and his only vascular experience consists of a six-month rotation in vascular surgery during his training from 1959-1963. While it is true that the expert has sufficient knowledge, skill, training, education, and experience to qualify him to testify as an expert in general surgery, McDaniel has offered no evidence that he has the requisite experience and knowledge to testify concerning the standard of care required of a cardiologist who is performing a femoral angiogram. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by granting the motion to strike this testimony. Issue 2: Additional time McDaniel argues the trial court erred when it denied her motion for additional time to designate an expert witness. A trial court has sound discretion to grant or deny a continuance under M.R.C.P. 56(f). Rule 56(f) is not designed to protect litigants who are lazy or dilatory. The trial court denied McDaniel’s motion for additional time to designate experts based on McDaniel’s failure to designate an expert witness during the sixty-day period awarded when the trial court granted McDaniel’s motion to hold summary judgment in abeyance. Four months had passed since the trial court granted Dr. Pidikiti’s motion to strike McDaniel's expert witness. During that four-month period, McDaniel failed to designate additional experts. These facts show that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying McDaniel’s request for twenty-one days to designate experts. McDaniel also argues that the trial court erred by failing to hold a hearing on the motion for summary judgment. There is no explicit or implicit right to a hearing under Rule 56(c).


    Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court