Mary Carnathan v. William Bryan Rogers
218 So. 3d 274
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Mary Carnathan sued several physicians and hospital entities for wrongful-death medical malpractice on behalf of decedent Joe Carnathan.
- Process was attempted on Gilmore Memorial Hospital, but the correct corporate defendant was Amory HMA LLC; Carnathan filed an un-noticed motion to amend to add Amory HMA but did not pursue or obtain leave to amend.
- Multiple defendants (Drs. Bailey, Rogers, and Brand) moved for summary judgment arguing Carnathan failed to designate an expert and provide an expert affidavit establishing standard of care, breach, and causation.
- The circuit court ordered Carnathan to respond; she filed responses but did not designate any expert or submit expert affidavits before the summary-judgment hearing.
- The court granted summary judgment for the physicians; Carnathan appealed, arguing the court should have allowed amendment and that expert designation deadline under Uniform Rule 4.04 made summary judgment premature.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was improper because Carnathan had not yet been required to designate an expert under Rule 4.04 | Carnathan argued she had until 60 days before trial to designate experts, so summary judgment was premature | Defendants argued plaintiff had not produced any expert evidence required to establish a prima facie malpractice case and thus summary judgment was proper | Held: Summary judgment affirmed — plaintiff’s lack of expert evidence before the hearing was fatal; Rule 4.04 does not bar earlier summary-judgment motions |
| Whether the court erred by considering summary-judgment motions while a motion to amend to add Amory HMA was pending | Carnathan argued the court should have granted leave to amend and entered a scheduling order before ruling | Defendants argued a pending, un-noticed motion to amend does not prevent summary-judgment consideration and plaintiff still had the burden to produce expert evidence | Held: No error — considering motions while amendment was pending was not an abuse of discretion; de novo review applies |
| Whether expert testimony was required to establish prima facie medical-malpractice claim | Carnathan contended deadlines and procedure excused immediate expert designation | Defendants maintained Mississippi law requires expert testimony to prove standard of care, breach, and proximate cause in malpractice cases | Held: Expert testimony is required; absence of expert testimony means plaintiff cannot survive summary judgment |
| Whether any genuine issue of material fact existed to defeat summary judgment | Carnathan argued procedural rules and pending amendment raised questions for trial | Defendants pointed to absence of expert affidavits or designations showing standard, breach, causation | Held: No genuine issue of material fact; defendants entitled to judgment as a matter of law |
Key Cases Cited
- Karpinsky v. Am. Nat’l Ins. Co., 109 So. 3d 84 (Miss. 2013) (summary-judgment standard and burden rules)
- Johnson v. Pace, 122 So. 3d 66 (Miss. 2013) (absence of expert testimony entitles movant to judgment as a matter of law)
- Smith v. Gilmore Mem’l Hosp., Inc., 952 So. 2d 177 (Miss. 2007) (expert testimony requirement in malpractice cases)
- Posey v. Burrow, 93 So. 3d 905 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012) (expert must identify standard, breach, and proximate cause)
- Barner v. Gorman, 605 So. 2d 805 (Miss. 1992) (expert testimony requirement in medical-malpractice claims)
- Langley ex rel. Langley v. Miles, 956 So. 2d 970 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006) (expert testimony required unless matter is within common knowledge)
- Cates v. Woods, 169 So. 3d 902 (Miss. Ct. App. 2014) (failure to provide expert was fatal to malpractice claim)