283 So.3d 1111
Miss. Ct. App.2019Background
- Beverly Knight underwent an L5–S1 transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) performed by Dr. W. Craig Clark in February 2007; four pedicle screws were placed.
- After surgery Knight reported persistent left-leg pain; Clark saw her through August 2007 and treated conservatively (medication, PT), advising recovery could take up to two years.
- Imaging in 2009–2010 led a later surgeon (Dr. Humphreys) to conclude a pedicle screw breached the spinal canal and contacted nerve tissue; Humphreys removed the hardware in August 2010.
- Knight sued Clark for medical malpractice, alleging he misplaced a pedicle screw and failed to recognize/correct it intraoperatively or postoperatively; she called neurosurgical and neuroradiology experts who opined misplacement and breach of the standard of care.
- Clark testified he used fluoroscopy and a tactile ‘‘ball probe’’ intraoperatively, denied breaching the canal, and asserted the screw migrated after surgery; his expert (Dr. Eckman) agreed the screw was misplaced but opined Clark met the standard of care and that nonunion—not the screw—caused pain.
- A jury returned a defense verdict (found no deviation from the standard of care); the trial court denied Knight’s JNOV/new-trial motions; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Knight’s Argument | Clark’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence (JNOV) | Evidence (fluoroscopy, expert testimony, later operative findings) establishes breach of standard of care; JNOV should be rendered for negligence | Evidence supports reasonable jury verdict for defense (Clark’s testimony, radiology reports, expert Eckman): substantial evidence supports verdict | Affirmed — evidence, viewed favorably to verdict, was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find no negligence |
| Weight of evidence (new trial) | Verdict is against the overwhelming weight of evidence and mandates new trial | Trial court did not abuse discretion; jury resolves expert conflicts and credibility | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; jury properly weighed conflicting expert testimony |
| Scope of expert testimony (Dr. Whaley) | Whaley (neuroradiologist) should be allowed to opine on neurosurgeon standard of care and negligence | Trial court limited Whaley to neuroradiology opinions because he lacked surgical experience | Affirmed — court did not abuse discretion in confining Whaley to his specialty |
| Undisclosed/new expert opinions (Dr. Eckman) | Eckman offered new trial-ambushing opinions at trial based on Humphreys’s operative notes not specifically disclosed | Defense disclosed Eckman would opine screw didn’t cause pain, would rely on Humphreys’s records; Knight failed to contemporaneously object | Affirmed — issue waived for failure to object; even if raised, disclosure was adequate to avoid ambush |
Key Cases Cited
- Natchez Elec. & Supply Co. v. Johnson, 968 So. 2d 358 (Miss. 2007) (standard for JNOV and substantial-evidence review)
- Little v. State, 233 So. 3d 288 (Miss. 2017) (appellate deference to jury credibility determinations)
- Bobby Kitchens Inc. v. Mississippi Ins. Guar. Ass’n, 560 So. 2d 129 (Miss. 1989) (new-trial standard when verdict is against overwhelming weight of the evidence)
- Amiker v. Drugs For Less Inc., 796 So. 2d 942 (Miss. 2000) (trial court’s discretion in granting new trial and its superior position to evaluate witnesses)
- Hubbard v. Wansley, 954 So. 2d 951 (Miss. 2007) (expert must show familiarity with defendant’s specialty before testifying to that specialty’s standard of care)