301 So.3d 695
Miss. Ct. App.2020Background
- On March 26–27, 2015, Jerry Don Webb underwent a transesophageal echocardiogram (TEE) by Dr. Thad Waites after admission for atrial fibrillation; the probe was difficult to advance, Webb coughed, and bloody secretions were observed.
- Webb sustained a pyriform sinus perforation with significant bleeding and subsequent respiratory failure, requiring prolonged ICU care and intubation.
- The Webbs sued Dr. Waites, Hattiesburg Clinic (his employer), Forrest General Hospital, and the probe manufacturer; plaintiffs’ sole medical expert was cardiologist Dr. James Rellas.
- Dr. Rellas opined that Waites breached the standard of care (e.g., should have reassessed, obtained ENT consult, used a bite block) but his affidavits did not expressly connect those breaches to causation of Webb’s injury or address Forrest General’s liability.
- Defendants designated Dr. Michael Main and Waites as experts, asserting the injury was a rare, recognized TEE complication and not caused by negligence; plaintiffs sought additional discovery but did not file a Rule 56(f) affidavit or specific, targeted discovery requests tied to causation.
- The trial court denied the Webbs’ motion to extend discovery and granted summary judgment for lack of proof on causation; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying a continuance/extension of discovery (Rule 6(b)/56(f)) | Forrest General’s refusal to submit to discovery (including a 30(b)(6) deposition) prevented plaintiffs from developing evidence of causation and hospital liability | Webbs were not diligent: they failed to file Rule 56(f) affidavits, did not pursue noticed depositions or motions to compel, and only sought time to depose defendants’ expert (irrelevant to hospital liability) | No abuse of discretion. Webbs failed to show diligence or that the proposed discovery would produce evidence of causation needed to oppose summary judgment |
| Whether plaintiffs’ expert proof established breach and proximate causation against Dr. Waites and the Clinic | Dr. Rellas said Waites breached standard of care (should have reassessed, consulted ENT, used bite block) and that prompt evaluation "may have decreased" Webb’s morbidity | Defendants’ experts said difficulty was not negligent and the injury was a rare recognized complication; burden rests with plaintiff to prove causation by reasonable medical probability | Rellas’s opinions were speculative and did not establish causation by reasonable medical probability. Summary judgment for Waites and the Clinic affirmed |
| Whether Forrest General could be held liable (administrative/vicarious) without additional expert proof or discovery | Webbs argued hospital administrative failures (triage delay, device tracking/cleaning, failure to detect injury) could establish liability and needed hospital policies/depositions to prove it | Forrest General and courts: these theories involve professional/medical judgments requiring expert proof; plaintiffs had no expert attributing hospital breaches or causation to hospital staff | Summary judgment for Forrest General affirmed. Webbs failed to present expert proof linking hospital conduct to causation and did not show discovery would change that |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. Pace, 122 So. 3d 66 (Miss. 2013) (summary-judgment standard and plaintiff’s burden on medical-malpractice claims)
- Palmer v. Biloxi Reg’l Med. Ctr., Inc., 564 So. 2d 1346 (Miss. 1990) (plaintiff must produce probative expert evidence of breach and proximate cause at summary judgment)
- Brown v. McKee, 242 So. 3d 121 (Miss. 2018) (requirements for Rule 56(f) continuance and need for affidavit showing what discovery will reveal)
- Owens v. Thomae, 759 So. 2d 1117 (Miss. 1999) (continuance may be warranted where plaintiff is diligent and shows specific need for discovery)
- Univ. of Miss. Med. Ctr. v. Littleton, 213 So. 3d 525 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016) (expert testimony insufficient where causation is speculative)
- Perez v. Univ. of Miss. Med. Ctr., 75 So. 3d 609 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011) (expert must explain how alleged error more likely than not caused the injury)