Hill v. Mills
| Docket Number: | 2008-CA-01343-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 01-28-2010 Opinion Author: Dickinson, J. Holding: Affirmed in part, reversed and remanded in part. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Medical malpractice - Expert testimony - M.R.E. 702 Judge(s) Concurring: Carlson, P.J., Randolph, Lamar, Kitchens and Pierce, JJ. Judge(s) Concurring Separately: Waller, C.J., Specially Concurs With Separate Written Opinion. Concur in Part, Dissent in Part 1: Chandler, J., with separate written opinion. Concur in Part, Dissent in Part Joined By 1: Graves, P.J. Procedural History: Dismissal; Motion to Recuse' Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - MEDICAL MALPRACTICE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-10-2008 Appealed from: LINCOLN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: David H. Strong Disposition: The trial court denied Hill's motion for recusal; The trial judge also granted Dr. Mill's motion to exclude a witness's testimony and granted Dr. Mill's motion for summary judgment. Case Number: 2002-372 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | SHANIKA HILL AND BRIAN THOMAS,
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS WRONGFUL DEATH
BENEFICIARIES OF THEIR DECEASED CHILD |
JENNIFER INGRAM WILKINSON, JOHN F. HAWKINS, CARROLL H. INGRAM |
|
|
| Appellee: | STEPHEN MILLS, M.D. | J. ROBERT RAMSAY | ||
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 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Shanika Hill and Brian Thomas brought a civil action against Dr. Stephen Mills, King’s Daughters Medical Center, and every physician who treated Hill from May 8, 2002, through June 2, 2002. They voluntarily dismissed all defendants other than Dr. Mills. Dr. Mills moved for summary judgment which the court granted. Hill appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Hill argues that the trial court erred in excluding her expert testimony, in summarily dismissing all of her claims, and in refusing to recuse. The general rule in medical-negligence claims is that negligence cannot be established without medical testimony that the defendant failed to use ordinary skill and care. M.R.E. 702 addresses the admissibility of expert testimony. For expert opinions to qualify as scientific knowledge, the expert’s testimony must be supported and based on what is known, and the expert must have knowledge that is more than subjective or unsupported speculation. An expert whose opinions are under scrutiny may not ignore allegations of unreliability and nonacceptance within the scientific community, but rather must respond with some evidence that the opinions are, in fact, accepted within the scientific community. Dr. Mills’ expert witness provided a sworn affidavit and testimony with citations to peer-reviewed literature which explained in detail – not only that no scientifically reliable literature supported Hill’s expert’s opinion regarding the efficacy of therapies to prolong the pregnancy – but also that all of the authorities and peer-reviewed literature was to the contrary. Hill’s expert presented nothing in response to this attack on the reliability of his opinion. In fact, he agreed that he could produce no support for his opinion, other than his own personal experience. Since one hundred percent of documentation presented to the trial judge contradicts Hill’s expert’s opinion, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in finding that, under Rule 702, the expert’s opinions regarding available interventions to prolong Hill’s pregnancy were unreliable and inadmissible. Hill’s expert also testified that Dr. Mills had breached the standard of care by failing to perform an ultrasound. Dr. Mills’ expert testified that the standard of care did not require Dr. Mills to perform an ultrasound. Thus, the trial court was presented with contradictory opinions from two qualified experts. Dr. Mills, while denying that failure to perform the ultrasound constituted negligence, argues that the unrebutted scientific literature clearly establishes that it would have made no difference, that is, the pregnancy could not have been prolonged. However, Dr. Mills does not allege that the scientific literature contradicts Hill’s expert’s opinion. Hill has articulated a cause of action for negligence which is separate and apart from her wrongful-death claim. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, the trial judge committed reversible error in holding that Hill’s expert could not testify that Dr. Mills had breached the standard of care by failing to perform an ultrasound. Hill also argues that the trial judge should have recused himself because his father had been a practicing physician in the area, and had at one point practiced at King’s Daughters. The test set forth in determining whether a judge should recuse is whether a reasonable person, knowing all of the circumstances, would harbor doubts about the judge’s impartiality. Hill has failed to produce any evidence regarding either allegation of impropriety. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
