Winfield v. Brandon HMA, Inc., et al.
| Docket Number: | 2010-CA-01676-COA Linked Case(s): 2010-CT-01676-SCT ; 2010-CA-01676-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 01-31-2012 Opinion Author: Ishee, J. Holding: Affirmed in part, reversed and remanded in part. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Medical malpractice - Statute of limitations - Discovery rule - Section 15-1-36(2) - Latent injury - Doctor-patient relationship Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Barnes, Roberts and Maxwell, JJ. Judge(s) Concurring Separately: Russell, J., specially concurs with separate written opinion joined by Irving, P.J. Non Participating Judge(s): Carlton and Fair, JJ. Nature of the Case: CIVIL - MEDICAL MALPRACTICE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-13-2010 Appealed from: Rankin County Circuit Court Judge: Samac Richardson Disposition: GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DISMISSED CASE WITHOUT PREJUDIC E Case Number: 2009-15 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Franklin Winfield |
JOHN P. SCANLON
JERRY L. MILLS |
|
|
| Appellee: | Brandon HMA, Inc. d/b/a Crossgates River Oaks Hospital f/d/b/a Rankin Medical Center, Health Management Associates, Inc., Norwood Smith, M.D., S. Blair Faulkner, M.D., and Kim Bishop, R.N. | STEPHEN P. KRUGER WHITMAN B. JOHNSON III CHRIS J. WALKER T.L. "SMITH" BOYKIN III ERIC R. PRICE JOHN L. HINKLE IV | ||
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 - Statute of limitations - Discovery rule - Section 15-1-36(2) - Latent injury - Doctor-patient relationship |
| Summary of the Facts: | Franklin Winfield filed a complaint alleging Crossgates River Oaks Hospital, Health Management Associates Inc., Dr. S. Blaire Faulkner, Dr. Norwood Smith, and Kim Bishop were negligent in failing to retrieve a fractured catheter piece and for failing to advise Winfield of the presence of the fractured catheter piece. Winfield filed a motion for partial summary judgment. He sought a ruling from the trial court as a matter of law that the statute of limitations had not run against him. Health Management Associates Inc., Brandon HMA Inc., and Bishop filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. Dr. Faulkner filed a joinder in their cross-motion for summary judgment. Dr. Smith filed his own cross-motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment, finding that Winfield’s suit was time-barred by the statute of limitations. Winfield appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Statute of limitations Winfield argues the discovery rule tolled the statute of limitations until early 2007. While section 15-1-36(2) controls most medical-malpractice claims, a specific section applies to cases involving foreign objects left during surgery. Section 15-1-36(2)(a) states that “the cause of action shall be deemed to have first accrued at, and not before, the time at which the foreign object is, or with reasonable diligence should have been, first known or discovered to be in the patient's body.” All of section 15-1-36(2) contains a “discovery rule,” and this rule controls cases where the act of negligence is not first known or is not discovered until much later. To benefit from the discovery rule, one must be reasonably diligent in investigating his or her injuries. In addition, the discovery rule only applies to a latent injury which is defined as one that precludes the plaintiff from discovering harm or injury because of the secretive or inherently undiscoverable nature of the wrongdoing in question or when it is unrealistic to expect a layman to perceive the injury at the time of the wrongful act. Here, the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and affidavits show genuine issues of material fact exist regarding the date on which Winfield was told about or discovered the existence of the residual piece. While Bishop’s notes indicate Winfield was told about the residual piece on the day of the surgery, Winfield maintains in his affidavit that he “had no knowledge of any kind that [a] broken-off piece off catheter tubing was left inside [his] chest.” He further stated that had he known about the fractured piece he would have insisted it be removed. This contradicting evidence establishes a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding the date on which Winfield knew about the residual piece; thus, there also exists a genuine issue of material fact regarding the date that the statute of limitations began to run. Furthermore, these triable issues of fact may require application of the discovery rule. If Winfield did not know about the residual piece on the day of the surgery, the discovery rule would have tolled the statute of limitations until early 2007 when he was told about the fractured catheter piece. Issue 2: Doctor-patient relationship Winfield asserts a doctor-patient relationship existed between himself and Dr. Smith through Dr. Smith’s participation in the diagnosis, treatment, and discharge of Winfield from the hospital. Winfield also asserts, apart from the doctor-patient relationship, that Dr. Smith owed him a duty of reasonable care. While a doctor-patient relationship is still considered one element in making a prima facie case of medical malpractice, a duty may arise even in the absence of such a relationship. It is clear that no doctor-patient relationship existed in this case. The extent of Dr. Smith’s involvement was a hallway conversation between himself and the treating physician, Dr. Faulkner, where Dr. Smith simply agreed with a course of treatment for Winfield based on the diagnoses he was provided. Dr. Smith was not Winfield’s physician, and he never had any relationship with Winfield. He never accepted Winfield as his patient; he never examined or treated Winfield; and he did not review or interpret any of Winfield’s films or test results. Imposing a duty for the type of conduct in this case would discourage doctors from consulting one another and benefitting from the experience of others. Dr. Smith owed no legal duty of care to Winfield. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
