Burnwatt v. Ear, Nose & Throat Consultants of North Miss., PLLC
| Docket Number: | 2008-IA-01563-SCT Linked Case(s): 2008-IA-01563-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-16-2010 Opinion Author: Chandler, J. Holding: Affirmed and remanded. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Medical malpractice - Admission of expert testimony - M.R.E. 702 - Defendant's theory of case - M.R.E. 401 - M.R.E. 403 Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Carlson, P.J., Dickinson, Randolph, Lamar and Pierce, JJ. Dissenting Author : Kitchens, J., Dissents With Separate Written Opinion Dissent Joined By : Graves, P.J. Procedural History: Interlocutory Appeal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - MEDICAL MALPRACTICE; Interlocutory Appeal |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-28-2008 Appealed from: Lafayette County Circuit Court Judge: Robert Elliott Disposition: After a mistrial and prior to a retrial on the matter, the trial court denied the Burnwatts’ renewed motion to exclude an expert witness’s testimony. Case Number: L02-186 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Charles Burnwatt and Debra Burnwatt, as Parents and Wrongful Death Beneficiaries of William Alexander Burnwatt, Deceased, on Behalf of Themselves and all Other Wrongful Death Beneficiaries of William Alexander Burnwatt, Deceased |
CYNTHIA MITCHELL, JOHN H. COCKE, CHARLES M. MERKEL, III |
|
|
| Appellee: | Ear, Nose & Throat Consultants of North Mississippi, PLLC and John F. Laurenzo, M.D. | SHELBY KIRK MILAM, S. DUKE GOZA, DION JEFFERY SHANLEY | ||
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 - Admission of expert testimony - M.R.E. 702 - Defendant's theory of case - M.R.E. 401 - M.R.E. 403 |
| Summary of the Facts: | On July 28, 2001, Alex Burnwatt had a tonsillectomy at Baptist Memorial Hospital-North Mississippi. At the time of the procedure, Alex was nine years old. Dr. John F. Laurenzo performed the tonsillectomy. On August 2, 2001, Alex returned to the hospital due to dehydration and died at the hospital the same day. On May 8, 2002, Charles Burnwatt and Debra Burnwatt, as parents and wrongful-death beneficiaries of William Alexander Burnwatt, deceased, on behalf of themselves and all other wrongful-death beneficiaries of William Alexander Burnwatt, deceased, filed suit against BMH-NM; Ear, Nose & Throat Consultants of North Mississippi, PLLC; and Dr. Laurenzo. The complaint alleged that the defendants were negligent in the manner in which the surgery was performed, in failing to require Alex to have further examinations, in failing to stop Alex’s bleeding, and in failing to exercise appropriate care. The complaint alleged that Dr. Laurenzo was an agent and employee of ENT Consultants and, as such, ENT Consultants was liable under a theory of respondeat superior. BMH-NM filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, or, in the alternative, a motion for a more definite statement. Thereafter, Dr. Laurenzo and ENT Consultants filed a motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, a motion for a protective order. On October 3, 2002, the Burnwatts filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint included the previous allegations and included more specific allegations of negligence against BMH-NM. After a hearing, the trial court denied BMH-NM’s motion to dismiss, granted BMH-NM’s motion for a more definite statement, and ordered the Burnwatts to file an amended complaint with a more definite statement. The trial court also denied Dr. Laurenzo’s and ENT Consultants’ motion for summary judgment and denied their motion for protective order. The case was set for trial on August 15, 2005. Prior to trial, BMH-NM filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of BMH-NM and dismissed it from the lawsuit. Subsequently, the Burnwatts filed a motion for relief from the order and judgment dismissing BMH-NM because Dr. Laurenzo and ENT Consultants later filed a designation of expert witness. This designation of expert witness was filed after the trial-court order granting summary judgment and dismissal to BMH-NM. The Burnwatts also filed an alternate motion to exclude the expert testimony and a motion in limine to prevent Dr. Laurenzo and ENT Consultants from any attempt to place blame, either directly or indirectly, on any BMH-NM employee. Later, the Burnwatts filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of apportionment of fault to BMH-NM. The trial court granted partial summary judgment in favor of the Burnwatts. The trial court found that, at the time of the grant of summary judgment and dismissal of BMH-NM from the suit, no genuine issue of material fact existed as to any blame or fault by the hospital. Notwithstanding the grant of partial summary judgment in the Burnwatts’ favor, the trial court also held that “[h]owever, this opinion should not be construed as to prevent the Defendants Laurenzo and ENT Consultants from presenting their theory of the case.” By separate order, the trial court denied the Burnwatts’ motion for relief from the order and dismissal of BMH-NM from the lawsuit. In consideration of the trial court’s grant of partial summary judgment in favor of the Burnwatts on the issue of Dr. Laurenzo’s and ENT Consultants’ inability to place blame or fault on BMH-NM, the trial court determined the issue to be moot. When the jury was unable to reach a verdict after a trial, the trial court declared a mistrial. Following the mistrial, the trial court set a new trial date. The Burnwatts filed a renewed motion to exclude the testimony of the expert. The trial court denied the Burnwatts’ motion, and the Burnwatts filed a motion for interlocutory appeal which the Supreme Court granted. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The parties in this case do not challenge the expert witness’s qualifications or expertise to testify as an expert. Instead, the parties challenge whether the trial court should have admitted the testimony of the expert concerning his opinion on the cause of Alex’s death. The Burnwatts’ theory of the case was that Alex died as a result of Dr. Laurenzo’s negligence in cutting too deeply into the tonsillar bed, resulting in Alex’s exsanguinations (blood loss) at the hospital. Dr. Laurenzo’s and ENT Consultants’ theory of the case was that Alex died as a result of a pneumothorax (air around the lung that causes the lungs to collapse) during resuscitation efforts. The Burnwatts argue that the expert’s testimony is an attempt by Dr. Laurenzo and ENT Consultants to show causation and to place blame on BMH-NM for Alex’s death. They further argue that the trial court erroneously admitted this testimony because the order granting summary judgment and dismissing BMH-NM from the suit was premised, in part, on the parties not placing any blame on BMH-NM for Alex’s death, which occurred at the hospital. The trial court found no genuine issue of material fact that placed any blame or apportionment of fault on BMH-NM. In a later order granting partial summary judgment to the Burnwatts on the issue of apportionment of fault to BMH-NM, the trial court found that Dr. Laurenzo and ENT Consultants could not place blame or allocate fault to BMH-NM. However, the trial court also ordered that “this order should not be construed as to prevent the Defendants from presenting their theory of the case.” A defendant is entitled to jury instructions on his or her theory of the case. Pursuant to M.R.E. 702, the expert’s specialized knowledge is permitted when it will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue. The expert may provide an opinion provided that the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case. Therefore, the expert’s testimony which supports Dr. Laurenzo’s theory of the case that Alex died as a result of resuscitation efforts, also may be viewed as simply expert opinion testimony. The trial court did not err by denying the Burnwatts’ renewed motion to exclude expert witness testimony. The trial court carefully monitored the proposed and actual testimony and opinions rendered by the expert at all stages of the litigation. His testimony was within the limitations set by the trial court in its rulings and passed muster pursuant to M.R.E. 401 and 403. While the trial court granted summary judgment and dismissal to BMH-NM, it considered that neither party had an expert who would provide testimony critical of the care of BMH-NM or its staff. The trial court also considered the Burnwatts’ acknowledgment that BMH-NM had not committed any negligent act or omission. The order specified that the Burnwatts premised their confession of the motion for summary judgment on Dr. Laurenzo’s representation to the court that he would not “point the finger” at BMH-NM. The expert’s trial testimony placed no blame on BMH-NM. He stated that, due to varying human anatomy in a certain percentage of patients, the placement of the guide wire for the IV may fail in some patients. In addition, the trial court gave limiting instructions on BMH-NM’s lack of liability. This case concerns whether Dr. Laurenzo’s actions or omissions fell below the standard of care. As such, Dr. Laurenzo and ENT Consultants have the right to present their theory of the events that led to Alex’s death by way of expert testimony. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
