In re Estate of Jones v. Phillips
| Docket Number: | 2006-CA-01898-SCT Linked Case(s): 2006-CA-01898-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: |
Opinion Date: 11-13-2008 Holding: Appellees' motion to withdraw appellees' motion for application of statutory penalty for unsuccessful appeal and to award costs and interest is granted. The appellees' motion for application of statutory penalty for unsuccessful appeal and to award costs and interest is dismissed as moot. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Medical malpractice - Personal jurisdiction - Section 13-3-57 - Peremptory challenges - Sufficiency of evidence - M.R.C.P. 50 - Motion for remittitur Nature of the Case: Motion for application of statutory penalty for unsuccessful appeal |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-30-2002 Appealed from: Coahoma County Circuit Court Judge: Kenneth L. Thomas Case Number: 14- CI-01-0061 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Estate of Venus Jones, M.D., Lance Wright, M.D. and Semmes-Murphy Clinic, Memphis Pathology Labs and Baptist Rapid Access Lab |
|||
| Appellee: | Tyson Phillips, A Minor, By and Through His Next Friend, Mary Jean Phillips and Mary Jean Phillips, Individually and as Conservator for Wilbert Phillips |
|
||
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 - Personal jurisdiction - Section 13-3-57 - Peremptory challenges - Sufficiency of evidence - M.R.C.P. 50 - Motion for remittitur |
| Summary of the Facts: | Tyson and Mary Jean Phillips, son and wife of the decedent, filed a survival and wrongful-death action in the Circuit Court of Coahoma County, naming Lance Wright, M.D., and the Semmes-Murphy Clinic, among others, as defendants for the injury to and eventual death of Wilbert Phillips. The court denied the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction filed by Dr. Wright and Semmes-Murphy. The jury unanimously returned a five-million-dollar verdict in favor of the Phillipses, assigning forty percent liability to both Dr. Wright and the Semmes-Murphy Clinic. The trial court entered a judgment on the jury’s verdict. Dr. Wright and Semmes-Murphy appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Personal jurisdiction Dr. Wright and the clinic argue Mississippi’s long-arm statute does not reach to subject them to suit in Mississippi courts. At the time the suit was first filed, Dr. Wright was a resident of Tennessee. The Semmes-Murphy Clinic was a foreign corporation whose principal place of business was Memphis, Tennessee. Both were engaged in the business of providing medical advice and treatment to patients at various Semmes-Murphy clinics and at hospitals in and surrounding Memphis. The threshold condition for application of the long-arm statute, section 13-3-57, is the requirement that the nonresident corporation, over which personal jurisdiction is sought, is not a corporation qualified to do business in this state. Assuming that Semmes-Murphy was a foreign corporation not qualified to do business in Mississippi, the clinic and Dr. Wright still subjected themselves to the personal jurisdiction of Mississippi courts under the “doing-business” component of Mississippi’s long-arm statute. The long-arm statute, by its plain terms, applies to any person or corporation performing any character of work in this state. It is uncontested that Dr. Wright was licensed to practice medicine in Mississippi in 2001 and did so “occasionally” (or “hardly ever”), visiting the patients of another Semmes- Murphy physician who were being treated at Baptist Hospital-DeSoto in Southaven. The clinic had an office in Southaven and rented “timeshare” office space in Grenada and Corinth. It staffed these offices with physicians who treated patients who resided in Mississippi. The evidence indicates both Dr. Wright and the clinic did business or performed work in this state. In considering the question of whether due process has been afforded a nonresident defendant, the court considers the extent and quality of the contacts of the defendant with the forum state and, assuming sufficient minimum contacts exist, whether the maintenance of the suit in the forum state offends traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Dr. Wright’s activities were directed purposefully at residents of this state, and from these activities the present litigation arose. Dr. Wright reasonably could have anticipated being sued for negligent treatment in Mississippi courts. Therefore, Dr. Wright had minimum contacts with this state such that the circuit court’s exercise of specific jurisdiction over him was not constitutionally deficient. Considering the interests of this state in providing a forum for legal redress for residents who are negligently injured by out-of-state physicians and the Phillipses’ particular interest in obtaining relief in this case, the circuit court’s assumption of personal jurisdiction over Dr. Wright comported with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Issue 2: Peremptory challenges Dr. Wright and Semmes-Murphy argue the Phillipses violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by discriminatorily using three of their four peremptory challenges against white members of the venire. Dr. Wright and the clinic particularly argue the reasons offered by the Phillipses for striking certain jurors were pretextual because they resulted in disparate treatment of one white member of the venire, the failure to voir dire a black juror regarding his connection to the medical industry, the lack of a record supporting a reason offered by the Phillipses to strike a white member of the venire, and discrimination on the basis of a group-based trait. Based on the available record, the trial judge did not clearly err in finding the Phillipses’ reasons for striking jurors were race-neutral. Issue 3: Sufficiency of evidence Dr. Wright argues that there was insufficient evidence at trial to show that Dr. Wright owed Mr. Phillips a duty to follow up with the Memphis Pathology Lab on the test results run on his cerebrospinal fluid within four days after drawing the sample and there was insufficient evidence that his failure to do so proximately caused Mr. Phillips’ death. Dr. Wright preserved this argument for appeal by moving the trial court for a directed verdict in his favor at the close of the plaintiff’s case-in-chief and for judgment notwithstanding the jury’s verdict as required by M.R.C.P. 50(a) & (b). Although the plaintiff’s expert’s testimony is, in specific places, unclear concerning when a minimally competent physician under similar circumstances should have followed up with the lab, his testimony sufficiently articulated such a duty of care, which Dr. Wright breached. There was also testimony concerning causation, and thus sufficient evidence in the record demonstrating that Dr. Wright’s negligence proximately caused injury to Mr. Phillips and his eventual death. Issue 4: Motion for remittitur Dr. Wright argues the circuit court erred in denying his motion for remittitur and that the five-million-dollar verdict is excessive on proof of economic damages. The jury's award is not to be set aside unless it is entirely disproportionate to the injury sustained. Here, the trial court did not err in denying Dr. Wright’s motion for a remittitur. The jury’s verdict was just over eleven times the Phillipses’ economic or special damages in the amount of $440,511.46. The jury heard proof that Mr. Phillips suffered severe, recurring headaches from March 17, 2000, until he entered the hospital again on March 28. He then lived in a persistent vegetative state for almost two years. He could not care for himself and required a breathing machine and a feeding tube to keep him alive. All of the wrongful-death beneficiaries testified as to the relationship each had with Mr. Phillips and the hardship and suffering each endured. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
