Gibson v. Magnolia Healthcare, Inc., et al.
| Docket Number: | 2010-CA-00741-SCT Linked Case(s): 2010-CA-00741-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-12-2012 Opinion Author: Lamar, J. Holding: DA-Affirmed; CA-Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Motion for JNOV - Ownership interest - Management contract - Liability of agent - Directed verdict - Breach of standard of care - Proximate causation - Circumstantial evidence - Mistrial - Punitive damages - Constitutionality of section 11-1-60(2) Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Carlson and Dickinson, P.JJ., Randolph, Kitchens, Pierce and King, JJ. Concur in Part, Concur in Result 1: Chandler, J., Concurs in Part and in Result Without Separate Written Opinion Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-09-2009 Appealed from: Washington County Circuit Court Judge: Betty W. Sanders Disposition: The jury awarded $1.5 million in compensatory damages, which the trial court reduced to $500,000 for noneconomic damages and $75,000 for permanent disfigurement Case Number: CI 2004-195 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | The Estate of Henry C. Gibson, By and Through Don R. Gibson, Administrator for the use and benefits of the Estate of Henry C. Gibson, and on Behalf of and for the use and benefit of the Wrongful Death Beneficiaries of Henry C. Gibson |
MARY J. PERRY
ANTHONY LANCE REINS |
|
|
| Appellee: | Magnolia Healthcare, Inc. and Foundation Health Services, Inc. | JUSTIN M. STARLING MICHAEL A. HEILMAN CHRISTOPHER T. GRAHAM | ||
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: | Personal injury - Motion for JNOV - Ownership interest - Management contract - Liability of agent - Directed verdict - Breach of standard of care - Proximate causation - Circumstantial evidence - Mistrial - Punitive damages - Constitutionality of section 11-1-60(2) |
| Summary of the Facts: | Henry C. Gibson was a resident of Arnold Avenue Nursing Home from June 2001 until December 2002. After being hospitalized in December 2002, Gibson was moved to another nursing home and died on January 26, 2003. Gibson’s estate filed a wrongful-death action on August 24, 2004, seeking compensatory and punitive damages, alleging that Magnolia Healthcare, Inc., the owner of AA, and Foundation Health Services, Inc., an entity that had entered into a management and financial-services agreement with Magnolia, were negligent in causing various injuries, some of which contributed to Gibson’s death. The jury awarded $1.5 million in compensatory damages, which the trial court reduced to $500,000 for noneconomic damages and $75,000 for permanent disfigurement. The trial court refused to allow the jury to consider punitive damages. The plaintiffs appeal, and AA and Foundation cross-appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Motion for JNOV Foundation argues that no evidence exists that it had an ownership interest in the facility or that it provided medical care to Gibson. Foundation argues that no liability can be imposed for providing managerial, administrative, or financial services to AA. Foundation further argues that its duties were akin to that of an administrator or licensee, which under Mississippi law does not impose on it a duty of care to nursing-home residents. At trial, all parties stipulated into evidence two contracts between Foundation and Magnolia: (1) a “Management Agreement” dated January 1, 2000; and (2) a “Financial Services Agreement” dated January 1, 2002. AA’s applications for licensure, which list Foundation as the managing entity, also were stipulated into evidence. The two agreements and applications were the only evidence the plaintiffs relied upon for Foundation’s liability. Foundation’s contractual duties are similar to those imposed under Mississippi law for an administrator and licensee. Foundation provided no medical care and thus cannot be liable for medical malpractice. Furthermore, the management contract clearly lists Foundation as “solely [an] agent and acting on behalf of Magnolia.” And in Mississippi, an agent for a disclosed principal is not liable for the torts of the principal. The agent incurs no personal liability absent fraud or equivalent misconduct. The plaintiffs presented no evidence that Foundation had committed an individual wrong, much less fraud or equivalent misconduct. Thus, the trial court erred in denying Foundation’s motion for JNOV. Issue 2: Directed verdict Magnolia argues that the plaintiffs failed to prove Gibson suffered from permanent disfigurement or that AA caused permanent disfigurement. However, Magnolia did not argue the issue of permanent disfigurement before the trial court, and as such, failed to preserve it for appeal. Magnolia also argues that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that AA proximately caused the hemothorax and broken arm that allegedly contributed to Gibson’s death. Magnolia further argues that the plaintiffs had failed to establish a breach of the standard of care in relation to Gibson’s pressure sores, nutrition, and hydration. It also argues that the plaintiffs had failed to establish AA caused Gibson’s contractures. Generally, expert testimony is needed in a medical malpractice case to prove that a breach of the standard of care caused or contributed to the alleged injury. Additionally, negligence and causation may be established by circumstantial evidence, but this rule is qualified to the extent that the circumstances shown must be such as to take the case out of the realm of conjecture and place it within the field of legitimate inference. In this case, the jury was presented with testimony that Gibson’s bedrails, which were supposed to be up at all times, were left down on occasion. Medical records documented two falls, one of which was due to a faulty bedrail. While no injury resulted from these falls, this evidence established that Gibson’s bedrails were not always upright to prevent a fall. Gibson’s treating radiologist, testified that a hemothorax is usually caused by trauma. And based on Gibson’s x-rays, the fracture was not common for a man Gibson’s age unless he took a “severe fall.” As for the hemothorax, Dr. Williams explained that the fluid buildup could have been a consequence of a fall, congestive heart failure, cancer, or tuberculosis. However, Gibson’s treating physician tested the fluid and ruled out cancer and tuberculosis. And Dr. Williams ruled out congestive heart failure based on the treating radiologist’s findings and the fact that Gibson was severely dehydrated when admitted to the hospital. Dr. Williams concluded there was no evidence of congestive heart failure, but that Gibson’s hemothorax and broken arm were the result of trauma, the timing of which he placed at the nursing home. He also testified that the hemothorax and broken arm were contributing causes of Gibson’s death. Thus, substantial evidence supports the plaintiffs’ theory that AA negligently caused Gibson’s hemothorax and broken arm, which in turn contributed to his death. The plaintiffs admitted at trial that Gibson was malnourished at the time he entered the nursing home. However, the plaintiffs contended AA failed to ensure that Gibson received the correct amount of liquids and food through his PEG tube, causing further malnutrition and dehydration. The plaintiffs presented the testimony of Jacqueline Rollins, a certified nursing assistant, who cared for Gibson during July through August 2001. She testified that, many times, AA was short-staffed, which prevented her from making rounds every two hours as required. She stated that the short staffing prevented Gibson from being regularly turned or kept clean. She also testified that many times she found Gibson’s bed linens soaked in milk, with his PEG tube disconnected. Viola Bryant, another certified nursing assistant who provided care to Gibson in May or June 2001, also testified that AA was short-staffed “most of the time.” Thus, the plaintiffs provided fact and expert witnesses whose testimony supports a jury finding that AA breached various standards of care that in turn caused Gibson’s injuries. The jury chose to believe the plaintiffs’ witnesses rather than Magnolia’s witnesses. Issue 3: Mistrial Punitive damages are appropriate only in cases where the plaintiff shows by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted with malice, gross negligence evidencing willful, wanton, or reckless disregard for the safety of others, or the commission of actual fraud. The punitive-damages phase is bifurcated from the compensatory phase. Magnolia argues that plaintiffs’ counsel improperly solicited evidence applicable only at the punitive-damages phase during the compensatory phase, and thus the trial court abused its discretion in failing to grant a mistrial. When a plaintiff improperly introduces evidence probative of punitive damages, there is reversible error when that evidence materially prejudices the defendant. Here, the testimony was an isolated incident of evidence relevant to punitive damages. While a witness testified improperly by using “buzz words” associated with punitive damages, it did not materially prejudiced Magnolia. The trial judge immediately instructed the jury to disregard the testimony, and the jury is presumed to have done so. Magnolia also argues that plaintiffs’ counsel made improper comments during his cross-examination of Dr. Payne. While plaintiffs’ counsel improperly commented on Dr. Payne’s testimony, the transcript reveals counsel’s frustration at Dr. Payne’s failure to answer questions on cross-examination. And as acknowledged by the trial court, plaintiffs’ counsel could have established the same point through proper questioning instead of commenting. Furthermore, the trial court sustained Magnolia’s objections and admonished plaintiffs’ counsel in front of the jury. Thus, there is no material prejudice and no basis for a mistrial. Issue 4: Punitive damages Punitive damages are appropriate only in cases where the plaintiff shows by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted with malice, gross negligence evidencing willful, wanton, or reckless disregard for the safety of others, or the commission of actual fraud. The plaintiffs did not present any additional evidence at the punitive-damages phase but relied on the evidence submitted during the compensatory phase. The trial court correctly ruled the plaintiffs did not show by clear and convincing evidence that Magnolia acted with willful, wanton, or reckless disregard for the safety of others, or committed actual fraud. Issue 5: Constitutionality of section 11-1-60(2) Plaintiffs’ argument regarding the constitutionality of the noneconomic-damages cap is raised for the first time on appeal. It is a well-settled rule that the constitutionality of a statute will not be considered unless the point is specifically pleaded. Thus, this issue is procedurally barred on appeal. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
