Cleveland Nursing & Rehabilitation, LLC v. Estate of Gully, 206 So. 3d 516

Background

Annie Mae Gully, a resident of Cleveland Nursing, fell, broke her hip, underwent surgery, and died six days later; her administratrix (Bellmon) sued Cleveland for negligence/gross negligence.
Bellmon designated nurse/administrator Karon Goldsmith and treating physician Wayne Dotson as experts; Goldsmith’s written disclosures listed multiple alleged nursing breaches but did not mention restraints.
Cleveland disclosed its own experts (Dr. Meeks and Gaye Ragland) but discovery supplementation was not completed by either side after a court admonition that experts could only testify to disclosed opinions.
Bellmon moved to inspect Cleveland’s premises and equipment (including restraints); the court granted inspection. At trial the court allowed Goldsmith to testify about restraints despite no disclosure; Cleveland objected.
The jury awarded $1,000,000 noneconomic damages (later reduced to $500,000 under statute); Cleveland filed a new-trial motion which was initially contested as untimely due to an imperfect clerk docket entry. The trial court later entered judgment properly and considered the motion.
The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed some procedural rulings but reversed and remanded for a new trial because the trial court abused its discretion by admitting Goldsmith’s previously undisclosed restraint opinions; it also affirmed exclusion of Dr. Meeks’s undisclosed cause-of-death opinion and upheld the court’s handling of the judgment entry/new-trial timing.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Bellmon)	Defendant's Argument (Cleveland)	Held
1. Admission of undisclosed expert opinion on restraints	Goldsmith could testify about restraints; inspection of facility gave notice of restraint issues	Goldsmith never disclosed restraint opinions in Rule 26(f) responses; Cleveland was ambushed and prejudiced	Reversed: admission of undisclosed restraint opinions was reversible error; inspection did not substitute for required disclosure
2. Exclusion of Dr. Meeks’s testimony on cause of death	Meeks reviewed records (including death certificate) and should be allowed to testify he lacks sufficient information to opine on cause of death	Meeks’s designation did not disclose a cause-of-death opinion; testimony would exceed disclosed opinions	Affirmed: trial court properly excluded undisclosed cause-of-death testimony
3. Timeliness of motion for new trial / clerk’s docket entry	The clerk’s note "JUDGMENT SENT TO ALL PARTIES" constituted entry of judgment; new-trial motion was untimely	The docket entry did not comply with Rule 79(a); judgment was not effectively entered until proper docketing, so new-trial motion timely filed	Affirmed: docket entry was insufficient under Rule 79(a); court did not err allowing refiled motion after proper entry
4. Alleged improper closing argument regarding prior fall	Counsel argued prior December 19 fall showed lack of monitoring and was admissible as notice	Cleveland contends prior fall evidence/arguments about breach were excluded and counsel improperly argued breach without expert support	Court cautioned parties for retrial; did not decide as dispositive (issue not reached because of reversal on expert-disclosure ground)

Key Cases Cited

Hyundai Motor America v. Applewhite, 53 So. 3d 749 (Miss. 2011) (a party must supplement expert disclosures under Rule 26 when testimony changes to avoid ambush)
Choctaw Maid Farms, Inc. v. Hailey, 822 So. 2d 911 (Miss. 2002) (duty to amend discovery responses when information makes prior responses incorrect or no longer true)
In re Dunn, 82 So. 3d 589 (Miss. 2012) (discussing clerk docketing requirements under Rule 79)
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (standard for admissibility of expert testimony)