Triplett v. River Region Med. Corp.
| Docket Number: | 2008-CA-01173-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 12-14-2010 Opinion Author: Ishee, J. Holding: Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Medical malpractice - Expert testimony - Challenge for cause - Mistrial - Admission of evidence - M.R.E. 801(d)(1)(A) - Eggshell skull doctrine Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Griffis, Barnes, Roberts, Carlton and Maxwell, JJ. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - MEDICAL MALPRACTICE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-20-2008 Appealed from: WARREN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Frank G. Vollor Disposition: GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO DEFENDANTS WILLIAM C. PORTER JR., M.D., GLADYS HOWARD, R.N., AND TO RIVER REGION MEDICAL CORPORATION; JURY RETURNED A VERDICT IN FAVOR OF THE REMAINING DEFENDANTS Case Number: 06,0054-CI |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | James K. Triplett as the Administrator of the Estate of Jean B. Triplett, Deceased: Andrew Maxwell Triplett |
TIMOTHY W. PORTER, PATRICK C. MALOUF, JOHN T. GIVENS |
|
|
| Appellee: | River Region Medical Corporation, John Adams, M.D., Patty Stone, CRNA | R.E. PARKER JR., PENNY B. LAWSON | ||
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 - Expert testimony - Challenge for cause - Mistrial - Admission of evidence - M.R.E. 801(d)(1)(A) - Eggshell skull doctrine |
| Summary of the Facts: | The heirs and estate of Jean Triplett filed suit against River Region Medical Corporation, William C. Porter Jr., M.D., John Adams, M.D., Patty Stone, CRNA, Gladys Howard, R.N., and John and Jane Does 1-20. Prior to the jury trial, River Region filed a motion for summary judgment, which was granted as to Dr. Porter, Howard, and River Region regarding any liability for Dr. Lamar McMillin, the physician who performed the surgery, under the theory of respondeat superior. At the close of the trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of River Region. The Triplett heirs appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Expert testimony The court granted summary judgment as to several parties, including River Region with regard to Dr. McMillin. The court based its decision on the Triplett heirs’s failure to provide an expert who was qualified to articulate the standard of care applicable to several medical providers, including Dr. McMillin. Testifying experts are to demonstrate familiarity with a specialty, not merely a particular subject. Furthermore, admissibility of expert testimony depends on the scope of an expert’s knowledge and experience. At no point does it appear that the expert witness informed the court of specific testing or procedures Dr. McMillin should have conducted. Additionally, the record indicates that prior to providing his expert opinion, the Triplett heirs’ expert witness failed to review the records of Triplett’s cardiovascular physicians. Thus, the record provides ample support for the circuit court’s granting of summary judgment in favor of River Region. Issue 2: Challenge for cause During voir dire, it was discovered that a potential juror was employed by a law firm which had previously handled work for River Region. Questioning of the juror revealed that she had neither worked on the project involving River Region nor did she know anything about the project. The juror also affirmatively stated that she had no problem serving on the jury and was not biased toward River Region. Triplett’s heirs moved to strike the juror for cause. The court denied the motion, and the heirs did not use a peremptory strike against her. Accordingly, the juror was placed on the jury. Given that the juror was not an employee of River Region and that she would not feel pressured to favor River Region Medical Corporation or any other party and could competently serve as a juror, there was no error. Issue 3: Mistrial At the commencement of the jury trial, River Region’s counsel remarked in the opening statement that the heirs were “apparently” unable to find another expert witness in the entire United States to support their theory of the case. The Triplett heirs’ counsel objected, and the circuit court sustained the objection and directed the jury to disregard the remarks. On the morning after opening statements were made, counsel moved for a mistrial based on the remark. The record is clear that not only was the Triplett heirs’ motion for a mistrial untimely, but the circuit court also took it upon itself to advise the jury to disregard the statements at the time the statements were made. Thus, there was no error. Issue 4: Admission of evidence Triplett’s heirs attempted to introduce a surgical consent form into evidence. River Region objected on the basis that Triplett’s heirs had not introduced a lack of informed consent theory into their case-in-chief. The court found that the form was inadmissible. The record supports the circuit court’s determination that the Triplett heirs did not introduce the issue of lack of informed consent into their case-in-chief, nor was it listed in the pretrial order. River Region did not make any mention of lack of informed consent during the trial until Triplett’s heirs attempted to introduce the surgical consent form. Thus, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion. River Region also called expert witness, Dr. Badr. Prior to the commencement of the trial, Dr. Badr executed an affidavit as to his opinion of the case. During cross-examination, the Triplett heirs began questioning Dr. Badr regarding the medical care provided to Triplett, while simultaneously reading into evidence parts of Dr. Badr’s affidavit. Upon re-direct examination, River Region moved to place the affidavit into evidence. The circuit court allowed the affidavit to be introduced into evidence over a hearsay objection made by the Triplett heirs. The Triplett heirs’ use of the affidavit in an attempt to show inconsistency in Dr. Badr’s testimony brought the affidavit into the realm of admissibility under M.R.E. 801(d)(1)(A). Therefore, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the affidavit of Dr. Badr to be admitted into evidence. Issue 5: Eggshell skull doctrine The Triplett heirs argue that the court erred by excluding their instruction advising the jury of the so-called “eggshell-skull doctrine,” wherein liability exists for damages stemming from aggravation of prior injuries or conditions. The Triplett heirs’ proposed jury instruction which discussed the general theories of law surrounding the eggshell-skull doctrine, would not have fully informed jurors of the applicable law. Indeed, the eggshell-skull doctrine, as explained by the instruction, would not apply to a case such as this, where a patient had a duty to advise her physicians of her medical condition prior to surgery, yet she failed to do so. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
