Sanders v. Wiseman


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2008-CA-02125-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 03-09-2010
Opinion Author: Maxwell, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Medical malpractice - Expert affidavit - M.R.E. 702 - M.R.C.P. 56(e) - Breach of standard of care
Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Griffis, Ishee and Roberts, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): Irving, Barnes, and Carlton, JJ.
Procedural History: Summary Judgment
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - MEDICAL MALPRACTICE

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 12-08-2008
Appealed from: LEE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
Judge: Paul S. Funderburk
Disposition: SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT
Case Number: CV07-170(PF)L

Note: Due to a military leave of absence, Hon. Virginia C. Carlton did not participate in this hand down.

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: WILLIAM SANDERS




D.L. JONES, JR.



 

Appellee: BENJAMIN WISEMAN, M.D. ROBERT K. UPCHURCH, JOSHUA SHEY WISE  

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 affidavit - M.R.E. 702 - M.R.C.P. 56(e) - Breach of standard of care

Summary of the Facts: William Sanders filed a medical-malpractice action against Dr. Benjamin Wiseman. After receiving discovery responses, Dr. Wiseman moved for summary judgment. The court granted the motion, and Sanders appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Expert affidavit Sanders argues that his expert’s affidavit contained a sufficient factual basis and indication of his proposed testimony to prevent summary judgment. Under M.R.E. 702, a witness is required to be qualified by virtue of knowledge, skill, experience, or education, and the witness’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge must assist the trier of fact. The party offering an expert’s opinion must show that the opinion is based on sufficiently reliable scientific principles. M.R.C.P. 56(e) provides that an affidavit offered in support of or in opposition to a motion for summary judgment shall be made on personal knowledge, shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matter stated therein. The facts upon which the expert bases his opinion or conclusion must permit reasonably accurate conclusions as distinguished from mere guess or conjecture. Here, the expert’s affidavit essentially contains the following assertions: he was a physician and general surgeon, licensed in Tennessee; he had reviewed the plaintiff’s medical records pertaining to the surgeries implanting and removing the spinal-cord stimulator; the device broke during the surgery; and Dr. Wiseman’s deviation from the standard of care proximately caused Sanders’s injuries. The affidavit contains no information regarding the field in which the expert was expected to testify. It also lacks any articulation of the applicable standard of care. There is also an absence of underlying facts explaining how Dr. Wiseman allegedly deviated from the standard of care. The affidavit contains nothing more than broad conclusions, unsupported by an adequate factual basis. Sanders had ample time and a fair opportunity to submit additional evidence of the reliability of the opinions offered in the affidavit but failed to do so. Under these circumstances, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in striking the affidavit. Issue 2: Summary judgment Sanders argues the circuit court erred in granting Dr. Wiseman’s motion for summary judgment. Generally, medical negligence can only be established by expert medical testimony that the defendant breached the standard of care. The sole exception to medical-malpractice cases requiring expert testimony exists when a layperson can observe and understand the negligence as a matter of common sense and practical experience. It is obvious a typical layperson, unassisted by expert testimony, would be unable to determine whether Dr. Wiseman failed to exercise reasonable care and skill in the surgical removal of the spinal-cord stimulator. Thus, Sanders was required to produce expert testimony to prove the elements of his medical-negligence claim against Dr. Wiseman. He failed to do so.


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