198 So. 3d 347
Miss. Ct. App.2015Background
- Ben Cahn, a 24-year-old inpatient at COPAC Addiction Services for prescription-drug abuse, was found to have buprenorphine (Suboxone) in his system and died at the facility on Dec. 18, 2011.
- COPAC staff documented difficulty arousing Ben, a positive urine drug screen for benzodiazepines and later buprenorphine, and that another patient (C.T.) told staff Ben was not breathing; resuscitation failed.
- Plaintiffs (Jeff, Laurie, and David Cahn) sued COPAC, Dr. Lloyd Gordon, and nurses for negligence/wrongful death; defendants moved for summary judgment invoking Mississippi’s "wrongful conduct" rule.
- Defendants asserted Ben illegally possessed/ingested Suboxone (and allegedly broke into Dr. Gordon’s office), so plaintiffs’ claims were barred under Price v. Purdue Pharma.
- The trial court granted summary judgment; the Court of Appeals reversed, holding the wrongful-conduct rule did not bar malpractice claims based on defendants’ duties after learning of ingestion and based on defendants’ alleged illegal storage/possession of Suboxone.
- Court of Appeals also addressed discovery: defendants relied on peer-review privilege to withhold statements by C.T. and staff; the appellate court instructed trial court to reassess production (Rule 612 and Claypool considered).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether wrongful-conduct rule bars malpractice/wrongful-death claim | Cahns: rule does not bar claims because defendants owed duties after learning of ingestion and Ben's illegal status was only a condition, not an essential element | Defendants: Ben’s illegal possession/ingestion of Suboxone (and alleged burglary) makes plaintiffs’ claim rooted in illegal act and therefore barred under Price | Reversed summary judgment — wrongful-conduct rule does not bar plaintiffs’ malpractice claims here; disputed facts and defendants’ duties remain for trial |
| Whether defendants’ alleged unlawful possession/storage of Suboxone defeats wrongful-conduct defense | Cahns: defendants’ illegal storage/possession made drug accessible; their misconduct contributed to death, so Price inapplicable | Defendants: focus on Ben’s own illegal act as the basis for bar | Court: defendants’ alleged illegal acts are material; plaintiff’s claim not wholly dependent on plaintiff’s illegality—cannot be barred as matter of law; remand for factual development |
| Applicability of comparative-negligence statute vs. wrongful-conduct rule | Cahns: comparative fault should govern, not an absolute bar | Defendants: wrongful-conduct rule is a recognized exception to recovery | Court: treated wrongful-conduct rule as an exception to comparative negligence but declined to abrogate Price; held rule inapplicable on these facts and urged supreme court to resolve the tension |
| Discovery — whether defendant waived privilege / must produce C.T.-related materials | Cahns: defendants used C.T. statements in affidavits/depositions but withheld originals as peer-review privileged; trial court abused discretion by not compelling production | Defendants: peer-review/quality-assurance privilege (Claypool) shields materials | Court: vacated summary judgment and directed trial court on remand to reconsider production under Rule 612 and Claypool; suggested C.T.’s statements likely discoverable and important |
Key Cases Cited
- Price v. Purdue Pharma Co., 920 So. 2d 479 (Miss. 2006) (announcing Mississippi wrongful-conduct rule barring claims that are essentially rooted in plaintiff’s illegal procurement/use of controlled substances)
- Meador v. Hotel Grover, 9 So. 2d 782 (Miss. 1942) (wrongful-conduct bar applies only where injury is proximate result of illegal act; mere status as lawbreaker insufficient)
- Miss. Dep’t of Mental Health v. Hall, 936 So. 2d 917 (Miss. 2006) (health-care facilities owe duty to safeguard patients from known/foreseeable self-harm or dangerous conduct; duty can subsume patient misconduct)
- Claypool v. Mladineo, 724 So. 2d 373 (Miss. 1998) (limits on peer-review privilege; plaintiffs may obtain information from original sources outside peer-review)
- Western Union Tel. Co. v. McLaurin, 66 So. 739 (Miss. 1914) (early articulation of rule that courts will not aid plaintiff whose claim depends on his own illegal act)