Cates v. Woods
169 So. 3d 902
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- On May 16, 2008, Cates underwent a dental impression at Dr. Woods’s clinic; the tray became stuck and technicians forcefully removed it, allegedly jerking her head and causing acute neck/spinal symptoms.
- Cates sought emergency and specialist care; MRIs and specialist notes documented a spinal lesion, possible subarachnoid hemorrhage, herniated disc, numbness, and muscle spasms, but did not definitively link these conditions to the dental incident.
- Cates sued Dr. Woods for dental malpractice in May 2010, alleging technicians breached the standard of care; she never designated an expert witness despite a court scheduling order requiring expert disclosures.
- Dr. Woods moved for summary judgment arguing absence of an expert on standard of care, breach, and proximate causation; Cates argued defendant testimony, her own testimony, and medical records sufficed and alternatively invoked the layman’s exception.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Dr. Woods, finding no expert designated and that causation required expert proof; this appeal follows.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether testimony of Dr. Woods and his assistant can establish standard of care without a designated expert | Dr. Woods’s and Brasher’s depo testimony admitted the applicable standard and showed a breach | Their testimony is insufficient because they were not formally proffered/qualified as experts at that stage | Court: Defendant’s testimony could supply duty and breach for summary-judgment purposes (sufficient to show duty/breach issue) |
| Whether causation can be proved without expert medical opinion | Cates: her testimony + medical records show the only reasonable inference is the dental incident caused her injuries | Woods: medical causation is beyond lay knowledge and requires expert linkage | Court: Medical records and lay testimony did not establish proximate causation; expert opinion was required; summary judgment proper |
| Whether the layman’s exception eliminates need for expert testimony | Cates: the injury is within common sense—"any idiot" would know excessive force caused harm | Woods: proximate causation still requires medical expertise; the matter involves professional judgment | Court: Layman’s exception does not apply; case involves professional judgment and complex medical causation, so experts required |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate given failure to designate an expert | Cates: no expert needed; factual disputes exist for jury | Woods: no expert = no admissible proof of causation → no genuine issue of material fact | Court: Affirmed summary judgment; failure to designate expert fatal to malpractice claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Kilhullen v. Kan. City S. Ry., 8 So.3d 168 (Miss. 2009) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- McGee v. River Region Med. Ctr., 59 So.3d 575 (Miss. 2011) (elements of medical malpractice and expert requirement)
- Delta Reg’l Med. Ctr. v. Venton, 964 So.2d 500 (Miss. 2007) (malpractice elements)
- Hall v. Hilbun, 466 So.2d 856 (Miss. 1985) (medical negligence and expert testimony framework)
- Palmer v. Biloxi Reg’l Med. Ctr., 564 So.2d 1346 (Miss. 1990) (expert qualification is trial-stage determination)
- Smith ex rel. Smith v. Gilmore Mem’l Hosp. Inc., 952 So.2d 177 (Miss. 2007) (layman’s exception limits)
- Vaughn v. Miss. Baptist Med. Ctr., 20 So.3d 645 (Miss. 2009) (examples and limits of layman’s exception)
- Williams v. State, 35 So.3d 480 (Miss. 2010) (requirement of reasonable medical certainty for expert opinions)