Hackler, et al. v. PHC-Cleveland, Inc., et al.
| Docket Number: | 2011-CA-00078-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-15-2012 Opinion Author: Fair, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Wrongful death - Continuance - M.R.C.P. 56(f) - Medical malpractice - Expert testimony Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Ishee, Roberts, Carlton, Maxwell and Russell, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Barnes, J. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WRONGFUL DEATH |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-02-2010 Appealed from: Bolivar County Circuit Court Judge: Kenneth L. Thomas Disposition: SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED TO APPELLEES Case Number: 2009-0065 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Latoya Hackler, on Behalf of Herself, Individually, and as Mother and Next Friend of A'Kaalin Hackler Townes, a Minor Deceased, and any Wrongful Death Beneficiaries of A'Kaalin Hackler Townes, Deceased |
LOUISE HARRELL |
|
|
| Appellee: | PHC-Cleveland, Inc. d/b/a Bolivar Medical Center and Dr. Robert C. Tibbs, III | KIMBERLY NELSON HOWLAND, L. CARL HAGWOOD, REBECCA L. HAWKINS, MARY FRANCES STALLINGS-ENGLAND | ||
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 - Continuance - M.R.C.P. 56(f) - Medical malpractice - Expert testimony |
| Summary of the Facts: | Latoya Hackler filed a wrongful-death claim against Dr. Robert Tibbs III and PHC-Cleveland Inc. d/b/a Bolivar Medical. The trial court granted summary judgment to Tibbs and Bolivar because Hackler did not present an expert opinion to support her malpractice claim. Hackler appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Continuance Hackler filed an M.R.C.P. 56(f) motion and requested more time to obtain an expert’s affidavit. In her motion, Hackler explained she was unable to obtain the complete medical records until August 2010, and due to financial difficulties, she had been unable to retain an expert. At the summary judgment hearing, Hackler admitted that she still had not located an expert to testify in support of her claims. To grant a Rule 56(f) motion, a trial judge must have proof of diligence on behalf of the party seeking a delay. Here, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hackler’s request for additional time to obtain a medical expert’s affidavit. Hackler had a year to find an expert and had the complete medical records for three months before the summary judgment hearing. Further, her affidavit does not explain how a delay will resolve the financial problems that prevented her from obtaining an expert. Issue 2: Medical malpractice A plaintiff must produce proof of each element of the medical malpractice claim. And expert testimony is required to establish that a malpractice defendant failed to use ordinary skill and care. Without an expert, Hackler was unable to establish that the defendants had failed to use ordinary skill and care. Thus, Dr. Tibbs and Bolivar were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
