Miss. Crime Lab., et al. v. Douglas, et al.


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2010-IA-00776-SCT
Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 09-22-2011
Opinion Author: Pierce, J.
Holding: Reversed and remanded
Additional Case Information: Topic: Medical negligence - Wrongful incarceration - Motion to sever - Joinder - M.R.C.P. 20(a) - Motion to transfer venue - Section 11-11-3(3) - Tort Claims Act - Section 11-46-13(2) - Section 11-46-1(f) & (j)
Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Carlson and Dickinson, P.JJ., Randolph, Lamar, Kitchens, Chandler and King, JJ.
Procedural History: Interlocutory Appeal
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER
Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 04-20-2010
Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court
Judge: Winston Kidd
Disposition: Denied the appellants' motion to sever and transfer.
Case Number: 251-09-329CIV
  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: Mississippi Crime Laboratory, Mississippi State Medical Examiners, Dr. Steven Hayne, In His Official and Personal Capacities, Sunshine Medical Clinic and Dr. Vihba Vig, In Her Official and Personal Capacities, Lisa Hoehn, M.D./Nurse Practitioner in Her Official and Personal Capacities, Expertox, Inc. and Medscreens, Inc.




 ROBERT L. GIBBS SHAUNDA P. BALDWIN JOHN G. WHEELER JOHN BURLEY HOWELL, III MILDRED M. MORRIS TIMOTHY LEE SENSING JAMES RANDAL WALLACE, JR. ROBERT C. BOYD LEAH NICHOLS LEDFORD WADE G. MANOR BARRY W. FORD MARLENA POWELL PICKERING



  
  • Appellant #1 Brief
  • Appellant #2 Brief
  • Appellant #2 Reply Brief
    		•
    Appellee: Hattie Douglas, Individually and as the Natural Mother, Next Friend and on Behalf of all the Heirs at Law and Wrongful Death Beneficiaries of Kaddarius Douglas, Deceased, and Kevin Hamlin, as the Natural Father and Next Friend of Kaddarius Douglas, Deceased, Kelvin L. Douglas, a Minor, Kendell Douglas, a Minor, Lakendrick R. Douglas, a Minor, Ty'sia Douglas, a Minor and Jerome E. Douglas, a Minor THOMAS JON-WILLIAM BELLINDER DENNIS C. SWEET, III LATRICE WESTBROOKS WARREN LOUIS MARTIN, 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: Medical negligence - Wrongful incarceration - Motion to sever - Joinder - M.R.C.P. 20(a) - Motion to transfer venue - Section 11-11-3(3) - Tort Claims Act - Section 11-46-13(2) - Section 11-46-1(f) & (j)
    Summary of the Facts: Hattie Douglas, Kevin Hamlin, and the victim’s five siblings filed a complaint in Hinds County Circuit Court against Sunshine Medical Clinic; Dr. Vibha Vig, in her official and personal capacities; Lisa Hoehn, nurse practitioner, in her official and personal capacities. The plaintiffs allege a medical-negligence and negligent-hiring cause of action against the Medical-Negligence Defendants concerning the treatment and care of their minor son and brother, Kaddarius Douglas, received before he died. The plaintiffs, in the same complaint, also brought claims against the Mississippi Crime Laboratory; Mississippi State Medical Examiners; Dr. Steven Hayne, in his official and personal capacities; Expertox, Inc.; and MedScreens, Inc., asserting that their acts and omissions in performing a postmortem examination and toxicological tests on Kaddarius’s body, as well as in storing and handling blood and urine samples, caused the wrongful incarceration of Douglas for the murder of Kaddarius. All of the defendants moved to have the trial court sever the claims and to transfer the claims against the wrongful-incarceration defendants to Rankin County and to transfer the claims against the medical-negligence defendants to Madison County. The trial court denied the motion. All of the defendants now bring an interlocutory appeal.
    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Motion to sever Before joinder is proper, both prongs of M.R.C.P. 20(a) must be satisfied. Under the first prong of Rule 20(a), there must be a distinct litigable event linking the parties. The court should consider whether a finding of liability for one plaintiff essentially establishes a finding for all plaintiffs, indicating that proof common to all plaintiffs is significant. The appropriateness of joinder decreases as the need for additional proof increases. If plaintiffs allege a single, primary wrongful act, the proof will be common on all plaintiffs; however, separate proof will be required where there are several wrongful acts by several different actors. The need for separate proof is lessened only where the different wrongful acts are similar in type and character and occur close in time and/or place. In this case, no distinct litigable event links the claims against them medical negligence defendants with the claims against the wrongful-incarceration defendants. Although the tragic death of Kaddarius is the nucleus of these claims, the claims involve different actors, different witnesses, different evidence, and different areas of the law. The medical-negligence and negligent-hiring claims require the plaintiffs to produce evidence that the medical-negligence defendants violated their duty of care in their treatment of Kaddarius and that they were negligent in the hiring of their medical staff. The evidence needed to prove these elements is in no way connected to the evidence the plaintiffs are required to show in order to prove their claims against the wrongful-incarceration defendants of negligence in the mishandling and testing of Kaddarius’s blood and urine samples. The proof that would be required to prove the various claims between the two different groups of defendants would only serve to confuse the jury. There must also be a common question of law or fact for joinder to be proper. This case involves two different claims against different actors that require different proof and discuss different areas of the law. Therefore, joinder is improper, and the claims should be severed. Issue 2: Motion to transfer venue The determination for proper venue is governed by section 11-11-3(3). Kaddarius received his medical care from Dr. Vig and Hoehn at the Sunshine Medical Clinic located in Canton. The alleged negligence happened at that clinic. Therefore, under section 11-11-3(3), venue for the claims against the medical-negligence defendants is proper in Madison County. With regard to the claims against the wrongful-incarceration defendants, section 11-46-13(2) of the Tort Claims Act controls the issue of proper venue in cases where a plaintiff files suit against the State or one of its subdivisions. That statute provides that venue shall be in the county in which the act, omission or event on which the liability phase of the action is based, occurred or took place. The plaintiffs argue that venue is proper in Hinds County because the principal offices of the Mississippi Crime Laboratory and the Mississippi State Medical Examiners Office are located in Hinds County. This argument, however, is not consistent with the statutes of the Tort Claims Act. Under the Act, the location of the principal offices is the proper venue for a case only when the governmental party involved is the governing body of the political subdivision. The Mississippi Crime Laboratories and the Mississippi State Medical Examiners Office, along with Dr. Hayne, do not fit the definition of “political subdivisions” set forth under section 11-46-1(i). Dr. Hayne was an employee of the State of Mississippi at the time of the autopsy, and the Mississippi State Medical Examiners Office and the Mississippi Crime Laboratory are part of state government under sections 11-46-1(f) and (j). Further, under section 11-46-13(2), in actions brought against the State and its employees, venue is proper in the county in which the act, omission, or event on which the liability phase of the action is based, occurred or took place. In his affidavit, Dr. Hayne testified that he performed the autopsy and gathered the blood and urine samples at the Rankin County Morgue in Pearl. Therefore, venue is proper in the county where the act or omission occurred, Rankin County.


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