Vanlandingham v. Patton


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2008-CA-01994-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 06-01-2010
Opinion Author: King, C.J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Medical malpractice - Challenges for cause - Expert testimony
Judge(s) Concurring: Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Carlton and Maxwell, JJ.
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - MEDICAL MALPRACTICE

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 08-26-2008
Appealed from: Lafayette County Circuit Court
Judge: Henry L. Lackey
Disposition: JURY VERDICT RETURNED IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS
Case Number: L04-312

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: Alice Vanlandingham




ALAN D. LANCASTER, JOHN M. MONTGOMERY



 
  • Appellant #1 Brief
  • Appellant #1 Reply Brief

  • Appellee: Gregory Patton, M.D. and Oxford Obstetrics and Gynecology Associates, P.A. CLINTON M. GUENTHER, 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 - Challenges for cause - Expert testimony

    Summary of the Facts: Alice Valandingham filed a complaint alleging medical malpractice against Dr. Gregory Patton and Oxford Obstetrics and Gynecology. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Dr. Patton and Oxford OB/GYN. Valandingham appeals.

    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Challenges for cause Vanlandingham exercised challenges for cause against two jurors which the court denied. Vanlandingham successfully exercised a peremptory strike against one of the jurors. However, Vanlandingham did not exercise a peremptory strike against the other juror, and she served on the jury. Vanlandingham now argues that the trial court erred by not excusing the two jurors for cause, because the jurors had a financial interest in the outcome of the litigation. A juror who may be removed on a challenge for cause is one against whom a cause for challenge exists that would likely affect his competency or impartiality at trial. The first juror stated under oath that he could and would be fair and impartial in rendering his decision. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Vanlandingham’s challenge for cause. The second juror also stated under oath that she could be fair and impartial in the case, and the court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the juror’s part-time employment with an internal medicine clinic would not affect her impartiality at trial. Issue 2: Expert testimony Vanlandingham argues that the trial court erred by denying her motion to strike an expert’s testimony, because his medical opinions were not based upon a reasonable medical probability and he failed to articulate the applicable standard of care. To determine the admissibility of expert testimony, the trial court must establish whether the expert testimony is relevant, meaning that it will aid the fact-finder, and the trial court must determine whether the expert testimony is reliable. It is true that the expert in this case used such terms as “my guess” during his testimony. Vanlandingham also points out other excerpts of the expert’s testimony that she believes shows that he did not state his medical opinions within a reasonable degree of medical certainty. In most instances, the trial court directed the expert witness to state his opinion within a reasonable degree of medical certainty or probability. While the expert did not always use the magic words “within a reasonable degree of medical certainty or probability” during his testimony, he stated under oath from the very beginning of his testimony that he would state his medical opinion based on a reasonable degree of medical certainty or probability. Despite a few instances, he did so. There is no requirement that an expert use magical language in his testimony, as long as the import of the testimony is apparent. The import of the expert’s testimony was apparent in this case. Vanlandingham also argues that during the expert’s deposition, he gave four possibilities regarding what went wrong in Vanlandingham’s surgery. However, at trial, he listed one possibility. This matter clearly goes to the expert’s credibility, which was a matter for the jury to decide, and has no bearing on whether the expert’s testimony should have been admitted.


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