Medlin v. Hazlehurst Emergency Physicians, et al.
| Docket Number: | 2003-CA-00019-SCT Linked Case(s): 2003-CA-00019-SCT ; 2003-CA-00019-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-23-2004 Opinion Author: Dickinson, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Medical malpractice - Full payment and satisfaction Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., Carlson, Graves and Randolph, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J. Dissenting Author : Easley, J. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - MEDICAL MALPRACTICE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 11-25-2002 Appealed from: Copiah County Circuit Court Judge: Lamar Pickard Disposition: Granted summary judgment to Appellees. Case Number: 2001-0332 |
|
| Note: | Motion for rehearing filed by appellee, Phillip Cranston, M.D., is granted. The prior opinion is withdrawn and this opinion is substituted therefor. Motion for rehearing filed by appellees, Hazlehurst Emergency Physicians, Emcare of Mississippi, Inc. a/k/a Emcare, Inc., and Willard Speed, Jr., M.D., is granted. The prior opinion is withdrawn and this opinion is substituted therefor. Motion for rehearing filed by appellees, Robert L. Walker, M.D., and Copiah Medical Associates is granted. The prior opinion is withdrawn and this opinion is substituted therefor. Motion for rehearing filed by appellee, Brian Twedt, M.D., is granted. The prior opinion is withdrawn and this opinion is substituted therefor. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Robin Medlin |
BRENT E. SOUTHERN |
||
| Appellee: | Hazlehurst Emergency Physicians, Emcare of Mississippi, Inc. a/k/a Emcare, Inc., Willard Speed, Jr., M.D., Copiah Medical Associates, Brian Twedt, M.D., Philip Cranston, M.D., and Robert L. Walker, M.D. | MARK P. CARAWAY WALTER T. JOHNSON AUBREY BRYAN SMITH, III STUART BRAGG HARMON JAN F. GADOW ROBERT S. ADDISON JOHN ALFRED WAITS JEFFREY RYAN BAKER |
|
|
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 - Full payment and satisfaction |
| Summary of the Facts: | The four motions for rehearing are granted, and this opinion is substituted for the original opinion. Robin Medlin’s car was sandwiched between a tractor lawn mower and an eighteen-wheeler tractor-trailer rig. Medlin filed a suit against against the driver of the eighteen-wheeler, Michael Walls, and his employer, D & M Trucking, and against the driver of the mower, Adrian Gonzales, and his employer, Clancy’s Lawn Care and Landscaping, Inc., alleging that the negligence of the two individual defendants was the proximate cause of the accident. Prior to the beginning of trial, Medlin settled with Gonzales and Clancy’s Lawn Care for $300,000. She proceeded to trial against Walls and D & M Trucking. The jury determined that the total amount of damages suffered by Medlin as a result of the accident was $300,000 but found that Walls and D & M Trucking were not guilty of any negligence which was a proximate contributing cause of the plaintiff’s damages. Medlin also filed a medical malpractice suit against the Hardy Wilson Memorial Hospital which she had been transported after the accident, Hazlehurst Emergency Physicians, Emcare of Mississippi, Inc., Drs. Speed, Walker, Twedt, Cranston, and Copiah Medical Associates. Because Medlin had already been paid the full amount awarded by the jury in the first suit, the second suit resulted in a summary judgment for all defendants. Medlin appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Medlin argues that the court erred in granting summary judgment against her based upon the doctrine of accord and satisfaction. Various defendants cross-appeal, arguing that the court should have granted summary judgment on additional grounds. The four elements of a valid accord and satisfaction include something of value offered in full satisfaction of a demand; accompanied by acts and declarations as amount to a condition that if the thing offered is accepted, it is accepted in satisfaction; the party offered the thing of value is bound to understand that if he takes it, he takes subject to such conditions; and the party actually does accept the item. The issue of full payment and satisfaction of Medlin’s damages was clearly before the trial court. There can be but one satisfaction of the amount due the plaintiff for his damages. In Medlin’s first suit, a jury found the full extent of her damages to be $300,000, which is the same amount that was paid to her in settlement. Thus, a trial against additional defendants who may be liable for those damages would avail Medlin nothing. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
