Wells v. Tucker
| Docket Number: | 2006-CT-00385-SCT Linked Case(s): 2006-CA-00385-COA ; 2006-CA-00385-COA ; 2006-CT-00385-SCT ; 2006-CT-00385-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-02-2008 Opinion Author: Carlson, J. Holding: THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED AND THE JUDGMENT OF THE RANKIN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT IS REINSTATED AND AFFIRMED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Medical malpractice - Experts’ bias - Medical malpractice insurance coverage - M.R.E. 403 - M.R.E. 411 - M.R.E. 616 - Sufficiency of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller, P.J., Randolph and Lamar, JJ. Judge(s) Concurring Separately: Randolph, J., Concurs with Separate Written Opinion Joined by Smith, C.J., and Carlson, J. Dissenting Author : Diaz, P.J., with separate written opinion. Dissent Joined By : Easley and Graves, JJ.; Dickinson, J. Joins In Part. Dissenting Author : Dickinson, J., with separate written opinion. Dissent Joined By : Diaz, P.J.; Graves, J. Joins In Part. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - MEDICAL MALPRACTICE Writ of Certiorari: yes Appealed from Court of Appeals |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 11-14-2005 Appealed from: RANKIN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: William E. Chapman, III Disposition: JURY VERDICT AND FINAL JUDGMENT FOR THE DEFENDANT. Case Number: 2002-20 |
|
| Note: | This opinion reverses the Court of Appeals opinion and reinstates the trial court's judgment. To view the original COA opinion, see: http://www.mssc.state.ms.us/Images/Opinions/CO42486.pdf | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | FELICIA WELLS AND REGINALD WELLS |
ROGEN K. CHHABRA,
DARRYL MOSES GIBBS,
JONATHAN C. TABOR |
||
| Appellee: | JAMES (MARTY) TUCKER, M.D., INDIVIDUALLY AND IN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT AND/OR AGENCY FOR JACKSON HEALTHCARE FOR WOMEN, P.A. | WHITMAN B. JOHNSON, III, SHELLY G. BURNS |
|
|
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 - Experts’ bias - Medical malpractice insurance coverage - M.R.E. 403 - M.R.E. 411 - M.R.E. 616 - Sufficiency of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Felicia Wells and her husband filed a complaint against Dr. James Tucker and various other entities. Dr. Tucker denied liability. The parties conducted discovery and designated their experts. The Wellses filed a combined motion in limine and a motion to strike Dr. Tucker’s experts as cumulative and biased. According to the Wellses, the circuit court should exclude their testimony as inherently biased. Alternatively, the Wellses sought to cross-examine Dr. Tucker’s experts concerning their commonality of insurance coverage to demonstrate bias via an alleged direct and personal financial interest in the outcome of the Wells v. Tucker lawsuit, i.e., Dr. Tucker and some, if not all, of his experts were members of, and had their medical malpractice liability policies through, the same insurer – Medical Assurance Company of Mississippi. The circuit court overruled the Wellses’ request to strike Dr. Tucker’s and refused to allow cross-examination of Dr. Tucker’s experts on the subject of commonality of insurance coverage. The jury returned a verdict for Dr. Tucker, and the Wellses appealed. The Court of Appeals determined that the circuit court had erred when it failed to allow cross-examination of Dr. Tucker’s experts to demonstrate bias. Essentially, the Court of Appeals concluded that it was error on the part of the trial court when it did not permit the Wellses’ cross-examination of Dr. Tucker’s experts regarding the fact that they share a common insurance carrier. The Court of Appeals reversed the verdict of the jury and remanded this case for a new trial. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Medical malpractice insurance coverage The Wellses argue that the trial court erred in refusing to allow the cross-examination of defense experts as to the fact that all three physicians had their medical malpractice insurance coverage through MACM, the same medical malpractice insurance company as Dr. Tucker. Dr. Tucker argues that the Court of Appeals’ majority decision is in direct conflict with its earlier decision in Toche v. Killebrew, 734 So. 2d 276 (Miss. Ct. App. 1999). The circuit judge did not abuse his discretion when ruling that such evidence should be excluded. The judge correctly applied Toche, which dealt with primarily the same issue as in this case – whether evidence of a liability insurance policy may be introduced to show economic or financial bias by a defense witness. In Toche, the court stated that there is a well established policy in Mississippi against interjecting such information in the trial without legitimate purpose other than as an attempt to color the juror’s view of the case and that this policy ought to weigh heavily against admitting such evidence under M.R.E. 403 even though some alternate basis for admitting it might have some arguable legal basis. While it is true that M.R.E. 411 and 616 permit the introduction of evidence pertaining to the existence of liability insurance to establish bias or prejudice of a witness, the ultimate filter for all evidence is Rule 403. Based on Rule 403, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in finding that the probative value of the evidence that Dr. Tucker’s experts might incur a financial penalty of $136 if the Wellses were successful on their claim was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice resulting from the admission of evidence concerning the existence of a liability insurance policy. Issue 2: Sufficiency of evidence The Wellses argue that they are entitled to a new trial because the trial court refused to permit their cross-examination of Dr. Tucker’s experts concerning the fact that they, like Dr. Tucker, were MACM insureds, thus exhibiting bias. As already determined, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in disallowing the cross-examination of Dr. Tucker’s experts on the MACM issue. In addition, the record supports the verdict which in essence found that whatever happened to Felicia Wells was not due to any negligence on the part of Dr. Tucker. Comparing the testimony of witnesses on both sides, it unquestionably became a jury issue as to whether Dr. Tucker was negligent. Thus, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in finding that the jury verdict was supported by substantial credible evidence. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
