311 So.3d 1192
Miss. Ct. App.2020Background
- Edward Stuart, a paraplegic from a prior 1997 accident, was admitted July 28, 2010 for increased spasticity and quadriparesis.
- On July 28 a CT scan required arm elevation; Stuart testified a technician forcibly lifted his arms and he began full‑body spasms.
- On July 30 a planned myelogram was converted to a lumbar puncture/CT with contrast; Stuart testified he asked the physician to wait for a spasm to pass, that the physician proceeded, and that he suffered a severe spasm at the moment of puncture and was immediately paralyzed.
- Stuart sued St. Dominic–Jackson Mem’l Hospital and Dr. Crawford for medical malpractice (filed 2012). Defendants moved for summary judgment; initial motions were denied. After out‑of‑time depositions of plaintiff’s experts, renewed motions were granted by the trial court on grounds the experts’ causation opinions were speculative and inadmissible.
- On appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Dr. Crawford (July 30 procedure) but reversed and remanded as to St. Dominic for the July 28 CT positioning incident, finding the hospital experts’ opinions on breach and causation sufficiently reliable to create a triable issue of fact.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial-court motion practice (motion to strike; out-of-time depositions; no hearing) | Stuart argued renewed dispositive motions and late depositions were improper and hearings were required. | Defendants argued renewed motions addressed admissibility of experts; depositions were necessary and permitted; Rule 56 does not require a hearing. | Court: trial court did not abuse discretion—implicit denial of motion to strike; out‑of‑time expert depositions within discretion; no entitlement to oral hearing on summary judgment. |
| Admissibility of expert testimony (Daubert/Kumho/Rule 702 gatekeeping) | Stuart maintained experts (Drs. Kowalski & Wiener) reviewed records, depositions, and treating‑physician affidavit and could reliably opine causation. | Defendants argued opinions were speculative, conclusory, unsupported by literature or objective data, and thus inadmissible. | Court: applied Daubert/Kumho and Mississippi Rule 702; experts’ qualifications/relevance not disputed. For the July 28 CT positioning, experts’ opinions were sufficiently grounded and not speculative — admissible. For the July 30/lumbar puncture claims concerning Crawford, experts failed to identify a specific breach and causation to reasonable medical probability — inadmissible for that claim. |
| Liability of Dr. Crawford for July 30 lumbar puncture (breach and causation) | Stuart argued Crawford ignored requests to delay during spasms and performed puncture that caused paralysis; experts attributed paralysis in part to the procedure. | Crawford argued experts could not identify a technical breach in his puncture technique or causation to a reasonable degree of medical probability. | Court affirmed summary judgment for Crawford: experts conceded the puncture technique was proper or could not identify a deviation, and they could not reliably opine causation to the required medical‑probability standard. |
| Vicarious liability of St. Dominic for July 28 CT positioning | Stuart claimed hospital staff forcefully positioned him, breached the standard of care, and precipitated spasms that contributed to deterioration. | St. Dominic argued experts relied primarily on Stuart’s history, lacked objective support, and their causation opinions were speculative. | Court reversed trial court as to St. Dominic on the July 28 incident: experts’ opinions (record review, treating‑physician corroboration, interpretation under experience) were sufficiently reliable to create a genuine factual dispute for the jury; remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1993) (court must screen expert relevance and reliability)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (U.S. 1999) (Daubert gatekeeper applies to all expert testimony)
- Miss. Transp. Comm’n v. McLemore, 863 So. 2d 31 (Miss. 2003) (adopted Daubert/Kumho standard in Mississippi)
- Hubbard ex rel. Hubbard v. McDonald’s Corp., 41 So. 3d 670 (Miss. 2010) (Rule 702 requirements and latitude for experts to opine from records and experience)
- Mariner Health Care Inc. v. Estate of Edwards ex rel. Turner, 964 So. 2d 1138 (Miss. 2007) (expert need not conclusively establish cause; must show deviations caused or contributed to injury)
- Poole v. Avara, 908 So. 2d 716 (Miss. 2005) (expert testimony presumptively admissible; weight for jury)
- Martin v. St. Dominic-Jackson Mem’l Hosp., 90 So. 3d 43 (Miss. 2012) (medical testimony must state probabilities not mere possibilities)
- Univ. of Miss. Med. Ctr. v. Littleton, 213 So. 3d 525 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016) (expert testimony must articulate duty, breach, and proximate causation)