Worthy v. McNair


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2008-CA-01642-SCT

Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 06-10-2010
Opinion Author: Pierce, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Wrongful death - Expert testimony - M.R.E. 702 - M.R.E. 703 - Timing of summary judgment
Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Carlson, P.J., Dickinson, Randolph and Lamar, JJ.
Dissenting Author : Graves, P.J., With Separate Written Opinion
Dissent Joined By : Kitchens and Chandler, JJ.
Procedural History: Summary Judgment; Directed Verdict
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WRONGFUL DEATH

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 04-30-2008
Appealed from: Leflore County Circuit Court
Judge: Richard Smith
Disposition: The defendants, through a Daubert motion, argued that the obstetrician-gynecologist whom plaintiffs offered as an expert was unable to provide reliable testimony regarding the cause of the baby’s death. The trial court agreed that the challenged testimony was unreliable and thus inadmissible, basing its ruling primarily on the following facts: the expert is not a pathologist; the expert did not study the placental tissues of the baby under a microscope; and the plaintiffs offered as an expert witness, in addition to the obstetrician-gynecologist, a pathologist who gave an opinion different from the obstetrician-gynecologist’s. The trial court also found that, without the obstetriciangynecologist’s testimony regarding cause of death, the plaintiffs had no expert to link the alleged breach of the standard of care to the baby’s death, and therefore, summary judgment and a directed verdict were warranted.
Case Number: 2002-0070-CICI

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: Vicki Worthy and Fred Worthy, Individually and As Wrongful Death Beneficiaries of Mackenzy Worthy, Deceased




ELLIS TURNAGE



 

Appellee: Robbye D. McNair, M.D., Women's Clinic of Greenwood, P.A. TOMMIE GREGORY WILLIAMS, JR  

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: Wrongful death - Expert testimony - M.R.E. 702 - M.R.E. 703 - Timing of summary judgment

Summary of the Facts: Vicki and Fred Worthy brought this medical-malpractice and wrongful-death action against the defendants, Dr. Robbye D. McNair and the Women’s Clinic of Greenwood, alleging that their unborn child died as a result of Dr. McNair’s negligent provision of prenatal care. The defendants argued that the obstetrician-gynecologist whom plaintiffs have offered as an expert is unable to provide reliable testimony regarding the cause of the baby’s death. The trial court agreed that the challenged testimony is unreliable and thus inadmissible. The trial court also found that, without the obstetrician-gynecologist’s testimony regarding cause of death, the plaintiffs had no expert to link the alleged breach of the standard of care to the baby’s death, and therefore, summary judgment and a directed verdict were warranted. The plaintiffs appeal.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Expert testimony Pursuant to M.R.E. 702, the trial court must engage in a two-pronged inquiry, determining whether the expert testimony rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the matter. Regarding the “reliability” prong – which is at issue in the present case – the testimony must be grounded in the methods and procedures of science, not merely a subjective belief or unsupported speculation. Reliability factors for determining the admissibility of expert testimony include whether the theory or technique can be and has been tested; whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication; whether, in respect to a particular technique, there is a high known or potential rate of error; whether there are standards controlling the technique’s operation; and whether the theory or technique enjoys general acceptance within a relevant scientific community. Furthermore, to be admissible, the expert’s opinion need not be based on first-hand knowledge. M.R.E. 703 provides that the facts or data in the particular case upon which an expert bases an opinion or inference may be those perceived by or made known to him at or before the hearing. The fact that an expert witness did not examine the person harmed goes to the weight to be given the physician’s testimony, not its admissibility. In this case, the expert’s opinions regarding the cause of the baby’s death are based on his experience as an obstetrician-gynecologist and his review of the medical records, autopsy report, and relevant medical literature. He is a clinician – not a pathologist – and does not perform autopsies. He does, however, routinely review reports prepared by pathologists. The autopsy report on which the expert rests his opinion in the present matter reached an inconclusive result. The expert qualifies to testify as to the standard of care. However, his testimony was unreliable as to the cause of the baby’s death. Such testimony would be outside his discipline or the particular topic in which he possessed scientific, technical, or specialized knowledge. Not only was he testifying outside his particular discipline, but the report on which he rested his opinion reached an inconclusive result. In fact, a pediatric pathologist who also testified as an expert witness for the Worthys, directly contradicted the testimony of the clinician as to the cause of the baby’s death. Thus, sufficient evidence which contradicted the clinician’s testimony was properly before the trial court. Issue 2: Summary judgment The plaintiffs argue that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment after the jury was empaneled. It cannot be said that conducting a full trial in the present matter would serve the judicial economy or the interests of the litigants in this case. Because the plaintiffs had no expert to testify as to causation, they could not prove the necessary elements of their negligence suit. Therefore, although a jury had been duly empaneled, the trial court was not in error for granting summary judgment in the present matter.


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