Ervin v. Delta Reg'l Med. Ctr.
| Docket Number: | 2008-CA-01816-COA Linked Case(s): 2008-CA-01816-COA ; 2008-CT-01816-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-08-2010 Opinion Author: Ishee, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Medical malpractice - Standard of care - Risk - Trial by ambush - Causation Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Myers, P.J., Irving, Griffis, Barnes, Roberts and Maxwell, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Lee, P.J., and Carlton, J. Procedural History: Dismissal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - MEDICAL MALPRACTICE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-06-2008 Appealed from: WASHINGTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Richard Smith Disposition: COMPLAINT DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE Case Number: CI2005-250 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Curtis Ervin, on Behalf of the Wrongful Death Beneficiaries and as Administrator of the Estate of Janice Ervin, Deceased |
GEORGE F. HOLLOWELL, JR. |
|
|
| Appellee: | Delta Regional Medical Center | L. CARL HAGWOOD, CHRISTOPHER WAYNE WINTER, MARY FRANCES STALLINGS-ENGLAND | ||
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 - Standard of care - Risk - Trial by ambush - Causation |
| Summary of the Facts: | Janice Ervin died of a pulmonary embolism shortly after a hysterectomy was performed on her at Delta Regional Medical Center. Her husband, Curtis Ervin, filed a wrongful-death action on behalf of himself, his three children, and Janice’s estate against Dr. James Beckham. Once suit was filed, it was discovered that Dr. Beckham worked for DRMC, the party who is ultimately responsible for his actions. After a bench trial, the circuit court entered a judgment against Curtis and in favor of DRMC. Curtis appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Standard of care The circuit court found that Curtis failed to establish a nationally-recognized standard of care as to the use of sequential compression devices. Given the circumstances of each patient, each physician has a duty to use his or her knowledge and therewith treat through maximum reasonable medical recovery, each patient, with such reasonable diligence, skill, competence, and prudence as are practiced by minimally competent physicians in the same specialty or general field of practice throughout the United States, who have available to them the same general facilities, services, equipment and options. Although Curtis’s expert felt that Dr. Beckham did not follow the standard of care for low-risk patients, the circuit court found that the expert offered no peer-review literature to support his position and that he also offered no literature or studies to support that his position is the nationally-recognized standard of care. There is no basis to disturb the circuit court’s findings on this issue. Issue 2: Risk Janice’s gynecologist and two other experts all testified that Janice was a low-risk patient because she was forty years of age; she had no history of cancer or radiation therapy; and she had no prior history of blood clots. On the other hand, the plaintiff’s expert argued that because Janice was undergoing a surgery that lasted for more than forty minutes and because she was on birth control pills (estrogen treatment) at the time of the surgery, she was not a low-risk patient. Curtis takes issue with regard to the classification of Janice as a low-risk patient for developing DVT/PE, and he argues the circuit court judge was clearly erroneous in finding Janice to be such. Essentially, Curtis has asked the Court to re-weigh the credibility of the witnesses. This exceeds the scope of the Court’s review, because the trial judge, sitting in a bench trial as the trier of fact, has sole authority for determining the credibility of the witnesses. Issue 3: Trial by ambush Curtis argues that it was unfair to allow the use of an errata sheet correcting an error in the deposition testimony of a nurse. In the findings of fact, the circuit court found that even if Curtis were given the benefit of the nurse’s testimony (that Janice was transferred without supplemental oxygen), the remaining testimony and evidence still showed and proved the contrary. The circuit court’s findings are supported by substantial, credible, and reasonable evidence. Issue 4: Causation The circuit court found that Curtis failed to show that Janice’s pulmonary embolus originated in her leg; therefore, even if Dr. Beckham had followed the expert’s stated standard of care in regard to compression devices, applying a compression device to Janice’s legs would not have prevented the embolus from forming in her pelvis and her ultimate death. Curtis argues this was error. All experts agreed that mechanical devices (compression devices) would not have prevented the formation of the blood clot in the pelvis. Thus, the circuit court’s findings are supported by substantial, credible, and reasonable evidence. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
