Kent v. Baptist Mem'l Hosp. - North Miss., Inc., et al.
| Docket Number: | 2002-CA-00936-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-02-2003 Opinion Author: Griffis, J. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Medical malpractice - Directed verdict - Vicarious liability - Medical bills - Verdict - Weight of evidence - Expert testimony Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King and Southwick, P.JJ., Bridges, Thomas, Lee, Irving, Myers and Chandler, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - MEDICAL MALPRACTICE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 04-11-2002 Judge: Henry L. Lackey Disposition: BAPTIST MEMORIAL HOSPITAL'S MOTION FOR DIRECTED VERDICT GRANTED. JURY VERDICT IN FAVOR OF DR. MANSEL. Case Number: L95-456 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Edna Kent, Individually and as Mother and Next Friend of Candice N. Cain, a Minor |
WILLIAM P. ZDANCEWICZ
DAVID WAYNE CAMP |
||
| Appellee: | Baptist Memorial Hospital - North Mississippi, Inc. and Dr. J. Keith Mansel | R. BRADLEY BEST S. DUKE GOZA JACK F. DUNBAR SHELBY KIRK MILAM |
|
|
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 - Directed verdict - Vicarious liability - Medical bills - Verdict - Weight of evidence - Expert testimony |
| Summary of the Facts: | Edna Kent filed a medical malpractice claim on behalf of her daughter, Candice Cain, against Baptist Memorial Hospital - North Mississippi, Inc. and Dr. Keith Mansel, alleging that they were negligent in their care of Candice. The court granted Baptist's motion for directed verdict at the close of the plaintiff's case. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Dr. Mansel, and Kent appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Directed verdict Kent argues that Baptist can be liable for the alleged negligence of Dr. Mansel under the theory of vicarious liability. Where a hospital holds itself out to the public as providing a given service, and where the hospital enters into a contractual arrangement with one or more physicians to direct and provide the service, and where the patient engages the services of the hospital without regard to the identity of a particular physician and the patient is relying upon the hospital to deliver the desired health care and treatment, the doctrine of respondeat superior applies and the hospital is vicariously liable for damages proximately resulting from the neglect, if any, of such physicians. Here, Candice initially sought treatment from Baptist's emergency room and the physician assigned. However, she was admitted to Baptist under the care of a partner of her primary care physician and within several hours, well before the alleged act of malpractice, Candice’s care was under the supervision and control of her long time primary care physician. It was her physicians who sought consultation from Dr. Mansel. Therefore, Dr. Mansel did not provide medical care to Candice simply as the physician assigned by Baptist. Issue 2: Medical bills Kent argues that the court erred in precluding her from presenting to the jury all the medical bills incurred by her daughter when she was transferred to Vanderbilt University Hospital in Nashville, Tennessee. Recoverable damages must be reasonably certain in respect to the efficient cause from which they proceed, and the burden is on the claimant to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the person charged was the wrongful author of that cause. The record shows that Candice received treatment for a variety of other medical conditions at Vanderbilt unrelated to the alleged negligent intubation and that she would have incurred medical bills regardless of the injury to her throat. Dr. Mansel did not cause Candice's diabetes, her seizure or the resulting complications. Candice’s only recoverable damages were those which resulted because of or due to Dr. Mansel's alleged negligence. In addition, any error was harmless since it did not affect the outcome of the jury's verdict. Issue 3: Verdict Kent argues that the verdict was not properly deliberated and was the product of bias and prejudice because the jury deliberated for only five minutes and underlined defendant four times on the verdict form. Not only is she barred from presenting this issue for the first time on appeal, but short deliberations do not automatically evidence bias or prejudice. Kent points to no particular incident which would have caused bias or prejudice on the part of the jury. Issue 4: Weight of evidence Kent argues that it is incumbent upon the defendant to offer an independent expert to counter the testimony of the plaintiff's experts and that the failure of Dr. Mansel to refute the testimony of her expert witnesses warrants a reversal of the verdict as being against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. While negligence cannot be established without medical testimony that the defendant failed to use ordinary skill and care in a medical malpractice case, there is no requirement that the defendant offer expert testimony or risk a directed verdict. In addition, Kent fails to consider the testimony of Dr. Mansel, an expert in the field of pulmonology and critical care pulmonology. Given the testimony, a reasonable jury could infer that the intubations at Vanderbilt caused or significantly contributed to Candice's throat injuries, instead of the first intubation by Dr. Mansel. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
