Patterson v. Tibbs
| Docket Number: | 2009-CA-01037-SCT Linked Case(s): 2009-CA-01037-SCT2009-CA-01037-SCT |
|
| Oral Argument: | 01-25-2011 | |
* This video is best viewed in the most current version of Google Chrome, Internet Explorer with Windows Media Player plug-in, or Safari (Mac Users). |
||
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-17-2011 Opinion Author: Carlson, P.J. Holding: Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Wrongful death - Expert testimony - M.R.E. 702 - Acceptance in scientific community - Causation - Standard of care Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Dickinson, P.J., Randolph, Lamar, Kitchens, Chandler and Pierce, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): King, J. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WRONGFUL DEATH |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-11-2009 Appealed from: Boliva County Circuit Court Judge: Charles E. Webster Disposition: After a two-day Daubert hearing in the Circuit Court for the Second Judicial District of Bolivar County, the trial judge granted the defendants' motion and excluded the expert witnesses' testimony on the predeath levels of Demerol in Atravius's blood. The trial court subsequently granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. Case Number: 2002-150 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Angelia Patterson, on Behalf of the Wrongful Death Beneficiaries and as Administratrix of the Estate of Atravius Coleman, Deceased |
GEORGE F. HOLLOWELL, JR. |
|
|
| Appellee: | Dr. Bob Tibbs, Dr. William McArthur and Bolivar County Medical Center | L. CARL HAGWOOD, MARY FRANCES STALLINGS-ENGLAND, DIANE V. PRADAT, BRADLEY K. OVERCASH, KIMBERLY NELSON HOWLAND | ||
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 - Acceptance in scientific community - Causation - Standard of care |
| Summary of the Facts: | Atravius Coleman was born at Bolivar County Medical Center on February 22, 2002, and died less than one day later. His mother, Angelia Patterson, brought a wrongful-death claim against BMC, Dr. Bob Tibbs, and Dr. William McArthur, claiming that they had caused Atravius’s death either through negligence or by breaching the standard of care. The defendants filed a motion to exclude Patterson’s expert witnesses on causation, claiming that their testimony was not reliable. The trial judge granted the defendants’ motion and excluded the expert witnesses’ testimony on the predeath levels of Demerol in Atravius’s blood. The trial court subsequently granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. Patterson appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Expert testimony M.R.E. 702 addresses the admissibility of expert testimony. Trial judges should act as gatekeepers and must determine whether the proposed testimony meets the requirements of Rule 702 and Daubert’s relevance and reliability prongs. Evidence is relevant if it will assist the trier of fact. The offered testimony in today’s case is clearly relevant, and the defendants do not dispute its relevance. In his order excluding the expert testimony, the trial judge focused on the lack of consensus among a wide range of authorities on the half-life of Demerol in a newborn. Patterson argues that lack of consensus among authorities is not a valid reason for excluding expert testimony under Daubert. There is not an absence of data on the half-life of Demerol in newborns; rather, the defendants presented published data on the subject which contradicts the plaintiff’s experts. The shortage of data in this case is an absence of data supporting the half-lives used by the plaintiff’s experts. Patterson failed to provide evidence that the offered opinions have some degree of scientific acceptance and support. Patterson is correct in her assertion that lack of consensus among sources does not automatically render an expert opinion inadmissible. An offered opinion that has been contradicted by published and peer-reviewed data, however, must be supported by some evidence of support and acceptance in the scientific community. Patterson has failed to meet this standard. In the alternative, Patterson argues that today’s issue is one of credibility, which is proper for the trier of fact to determine and not the trial court. Patterson supports this argument by claiming that the half-life used in a back-extrapolation calculation is an issue of credibility, which may be attacked through cross-examination or contradicting experts. However, the sufficiency of foundational facts or evidence on which to base an opinion is a question of law. As part of the trial court’s gatekeeping role, it must examine the reliability of the expert’s opinion and must determine whether the facts afford a reasonably accurate basis for the expert’s conclusion. The question of whether the experts in this case used the correct half life in their calculations is an issue of reliability, not credibility. The experts must rely on scientific data to form their opinions. Under Rule 702, these opinions must be based on “sufficient facts or data.” Using a correct half-life is essential to performing a correct back-extrapolation calculation. Without the correct data, the experts’ calculations will not be based on sufficient data. This is an issue of law which the trial court must determine, not the trier of fact. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the testimony. Issue 2: Causation The trial court stated that summary judgment was proper because Patterson could not show causation without the excluded testimony. Patterson argues that she can show causation without the excluded testimony and that summary judgment was improper. Dr. McArthur delivered Atravius and performed his circumcision. The causation testimony relating to Dr. McArthur focused on Dr. Hayne’s theory that Angelia Patterson had received an overdose of Demerol during labor and Dr. Shukan’s testimony that Atravius had received an overdose of Demerol during his circumcision. Dr. Shukan also testified that Dr. McArthur had breached the standard of care by failing to include a surgical note documenting whether he had given Atravius Demerol during the circumcision. Other than the testimony relating to the Demerol theories, there is no evidence of causation relating to Dr. McArthur in the record. Accordingly, the trial judge did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of Dr. McArthur. The bulk of the testimony in this case involved the Demerol theories propounded by Dr. Hayne and Dr. Shukan. Without this testimony, one would naturally think that Patterson cannot prove causation. However, there is testimony which tends to show causation on the part of Dr. Tibbs and BMC. The defendants argue that Atravius died of hypoplastic left heart syndrome. And although Patterson has argued that Atravius died of as a result of a Demerol overdose, some of the testimony focused on the treatment that Atravius received after his condition began to deteriorate for whatever reason. Dr. Shukan was of the opinion that, regardless of the cause of Atravius’s condition, Atravius should have received different treatment in the hours before his death. When viewing the testimony above in the light most favorable to Patterson, genuine issues of material fact exist concerning whether BMC and Dr. Tibbs caused Atravius’s death or failed to prevent it. Patterson has also presented sufficient evidence to withstand summary judgment concerning the other essential elements of a medical-malpractice claim against Dr. Tibbs and BMC. Dr. Tibbs and BMC had a duty to meet a national standard of care. Shukan testified in his deposition to the specific standards that the nurses and Dr. Tibbs should have met while treating Atravius. Dr. Shukan also testified that the nurses and Dr. Tibbs failed to meet some of these standards. Finally, Patterson suffered various damages due to Atravius’s death. Thus, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Dr. Tibbs and BMC. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
