In re the Estate of Sykes


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2010-CA-00654-SCT

Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 07-21-2011
Opinion Author: Dickinson, P.J.
Holding: Affirmed.

Additional Case Information: Topic: Wrongful death - Standard of care - Proximate causation - Battle of experts
Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Carlson, P.J., Randolph, Lamar, Kitchens, Chandler, Pierce and King, JJ.
Procedural History: Bench Trial
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WRONGFUL DEATH

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 03-22-2010
Appealed from: Calhoun County Circuit Court
Judge: Andrew K. Howorth
Disposition: The trial judge held the Appellant had failed to prove that the Appellee had deviated from the applicable standard of care.
Case Number: CV2008-000099

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: The Estate (Through the Administratrix Ida Campbell) and The Wrongful Death and Survival Beneficiaries of John Earl Sykes, Deceased: Ida Campbell, Jeffie Ezell, Donnie Draine, Sammie Joe Sykes, Ricky Wayne Sykes, Brenda Fay Hardwick, Terry Sykes and James E. Sykes




DAVID A. BOWLING, SUSANNAH C. MCKINNEY



 
  • Appellant #1 Brief
  • Appellant #1 Reply Brief

  • Appellee: Calhoun Health Services JOHN G. WHEELER  

    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 - Standard of care - Proximate causation - Battle of experts

    Summary of the Facts: After John Sykes died in the emergency room of Calhoun Health Services, his estate sued the hospital for wrongful death, claiming Sykes should have been hooked up to a cardiac monitor. The trial judge held the estate had failed to prove that CHS had deviated from the applicable standard of care, and had failed to prove that use of a cardiac monitor would have made a difference. The estate appeals.

    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Standard of care The estate argues that the trial court erred in finding that “[t]he plaintiffs in this case have failed to meet their burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that CHS health care personnel failed to conform to applicable standards of care in a manner that proximately caused or contributed to the death of John Earl Sykes.” The estate bore the burden of proof at trial, and its argument that the trial court’s verdict for the defendant was not supported by substantial evidence is misplaced. The defendant, CHS, had no obligation to put on any proof at all; and, unless the estate met its burden of proof, CHS was entitled to a verdict. To justify reversal, the estate must demonstrate that, upon considering the evidence favoring the plaintiff, the verdict was manifestly wrong. It has not done so. The estate argues that CHS’s busy ER did not excuse its failure to initiate ACLS protocol because the standard of care is the same, regardless of the ER traffic at the time Sykes arrived. But the estate cites no authority for this proposition, and there is much authority to the contrary. The minimum standard of care depends in part on the circumstances of each patient, and is to be compared to minimally competent practitioners who have available to them the same general facilities, services, equipment and options. Here, the trial judge properly considered the circumstances existing at the ER when Sykes arrived. The estate also argues that CHS’s triage policy constituted the objective standard of care in this case. Conflicting expert testimony – often called a “battle of the experts” – requires the fact finder to assign credibility. The trial judge, as the fact-finder in this case, was free to accept or reject any of the expert opinions. He found CHS’s experts to be more credible, and his decision was not an abuse of discretion. The estate argues that, even in the absence of proper triage, the symptoms known to the CHS nursing staff were sufficient to trigger CHS’s duty to begin their ACLS protocol, which would have saved Sykes’s life. The trial court heard expert testimony that Sykes’s symptoms were not typical cardiac presentation and that, due to the “mass casualty” situation, it was reasonable for CHS staff not to begin the ACLS protocol. The trial judge resolved this battle of the experts in favor of CHS, so this argument is without merit. The estate’s entire argument on this issue constitutes an attempt to impermissibly reweigh the evidence. Issue 2: Proximate causation Proximate cause in medical-malpractice cases must be established through expert testimony. The estate argues that it produced the required testimony, but that the trial court held it to an impermissibly high burden of proof, and was manifestly wrong in finding that it had not met its burden as to proximate causation. Both sides presented conflicting theories, each supported by ample expert testimony. Under such circumstances, it is the role of the fact-finder to resolve the conflict. In this case, the trial judge resolved the conflict in favor of CHS, and the estate offers no basis for its contention that the judge’s resolution of this issue was manifestly wrong.


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