Univ. of Miss. Med. Ctr. v. Martin
| Docket Number: | 2007-CA-00114-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-13-2008 Opinion Author: Graves, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Wrongful death - Expert testimony - M.R.E. 702 Judge(s) Concurring: Waller and Diaz, P.JJ., Easley, Carlson, Dickinson and Lamar, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Smith, C.J. Concurs in Result Only: Randolph, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WRONGFUL DEATH |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-13-2006 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: Winston Kidd Disposition: The trial court found in favor of the plaintiffs. Case Number: 251-02-1271 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | The University of Mississippi Medical Center |
J. Leray McNamara; Stephanie C. Edgar; JOHN MICHAEL COLEMAN |
|
|
| Appellee: | John Henry Martin, Individually and on behalf of wrongful death beneficiaries of Martha Martin, Yashica Good, Individually | Dennis C. Sweet, III; Richard A. Freese; Warren L. Martin | ||
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 - Expert testimony - M.R.E. 702 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Martha Martin was injured in a car accident and was taken to the University Medical Center for treatment. While at UMC, Ms. Martin was treated by attending Dr. Frederick Carlton and resident Dr. Lisa Anderson. The day after she was released, Ms. Martin’s husband, John Martin, discovered that she had stopped breathing. She was taken back to UMC, where she was pronounced dead. Martin filed a complaint, which alleged, in part, medical negligence against Dr. Carlton and UMC. UMC filed a motion for summary judgment which the court denied. After Martin’s case was presented at trial, UMC orally moved for the court to enter judgment in its favor. The trial court denied this motion and found in favor of Martin. UMC appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | UMC argues that the trial court erred by accepting the Martin’s expert as an expert in emergency medicine and that the trial court’s decision should be reversed for relying heavily on the expert’s testimony. On voir dire, UMC showed that the expert had not worked in an emergency room since the late 1990s. However, the expert testified that he anticipated starting work at the Humphreys County Memorial Hospital as an emergency physician within a month of his testimony and that, as a family physician, he treats patients who have conditions that fall under the specialty of emergency medicine. M.R.E. 702 requires that the testimony must be based on sufficient facts or data, the testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods, and the witness must have reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case. There is no requirement that only a specialist in a particular field of medicine can testify to the standards of care in that field. Here, the trial court properly made a determination that the expert’s testimony would meet the requirements of both Rule and the relevance and reliability factors in Daubert. The testimony would be based on sufficient facts or data in the form of Ms. Martin’s medical records and medical publications. It would be the product of reliable principles and methods because the expert reviewed the medical records and publications, and would apply principles gleaned from them and his medical experience. The trial judge in this case was in the best position to determine whether or not the expert would reliably apply the principles and methods to the facts of the case since the trial court had accepted the witness as an expert in emergency medicine before. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
