107 So. 3d 1029
Miss. Ct. App.2012Background
- Latisha Barrow, a high-risk end-stage CHF patient, underwent dental extraction of wisdom teeth in July 2006 after cardiology clearance for a heart transplant pending ICD considerations.
- Latisha signed informed-consent for the procedure; preoperative notes and cardiologist Dr. Moore advised minimal epinephrine, antibiotic prophylaxis, and monitoring considerations.
- Dr. May, an oral surgeon, performed the procedure in his office and Latisha experienced post-procedure weakness requiring monitoring and eventual ammonia administration before being driven home.
- Latisha died the same day from what autopsy labeled as massive cardiomegaly with pulmonary edema; experts linked death to stress-related cardiac events in the context of CHF.
- Barrow, as mother and representative, sued UMMC, Dr. Moore, and Dr. May; Dr. Stark and Dr. Ogle were designated as expert witnesses, with Stark providing causation opinions and Ogle disputing standard of care.
- The circuit court granted Dr. May a directed verdict after a Daubert challenge to Dr. Stark’s causation testimony, and Barrow sought a new trial which was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Daubert ruling on causation was an abuse of discretion | Stark, a qualified cardiologist, causation-supported; opinions grounded in literature | Stark’s causation speculative and improperly applied to Latisha’s stressors | No abuse; Stark’s testimony deemed speculative and insufficient |
| Whether trial court abused discretion on late Daubert motion and evidence limits | Timeliness and scope of Daubert motion should not bar admissibility | Late motion and evidentiary limits improperly prejudiced Barrow | No abuse; court properly allowed Daubert review and limited literature/testimony |
Key Cases Cited
- Denham v. Holmes, 60 So.3d 773 (Miss. 2011) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Hubbard v. Wansley, 954 So.2d 951 (Miss. 2007) (expert testimony required for proximate-cause elements)
- Barner v. Gorman, 605 So.2d 805 (Miss. 1992) (proximate-cause proof by expert testimony)
- Hill v. Mills, 26 So.3d 322 (Miss. 2010) (reliability challenges to expert opinions and community acceptance)
- Hyundai Motor Am. v. Applewhite, 53 So.3d 749 (Miss. 2011) (timeliness of Daubert objections before trial)
- Poole v. Avara, 908 So.2d 716 (Miss. 2005) (Daubert relevance and reliability guidance)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999) (Daubert framework application to expert testimony)
- McLemore v. Rhodes, 863 So.2d 31 (Miss. 2003) (application of Daubert and Rule 702 to expert testimony)
- Tricon Metals & Servs. v. Topp, 516 So.2d 236 (Miss. 1987) (need for findings of fact and conclusions of law in nonjury trials)
- Americrete, Inc. v. W. Ala. Lime Co., 758 So.2d 415 (Miss. 2000) (necessity of findings of fact and conclusions of law)