Patterson Ex Rel. Estate of Coleman v. Tibbs
60 So. 3d 742
| Miss. | 2011Background
- Patterson, on behalf of Atravius Coleman’s wrongful-death beneficiaries, sues Bolivar County Medical Center (BMC) and two doctors for alleged negligent care and standard-of-care breaches.
- Atravius was born Feb 22, 2002 at BMC, died hours later; trial focused on predeath Demerol levels and causation.
- Defendants moved to exclude Patterson’s causation experts (Shukan, Hayne) under Daubert; court held Daubert hearing and excluded their predeath Demerol testimony.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for all defendants after excluding the Demerol experts, on the theory that causation could not be proven without that testimony.
- Patterson appeals; Court affirms McArthur’s summary judgment, but reverses Tibbs and BMC, remanding for further proceedings; issues concern expert admissibility and summary-judgment proper-ness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Demerol experts under Rule 702/Daubert | Experts relied on data; broad acceptance exists | Half-lives not supported; lack consensus; unreliable | Exclusion not abuse of discretion; experts unreliable under Daubert |
| Whether summary judgment was proper given excluded testimony | Causation shown with other record evidence | Without excluded testimony, no causation proof | Reversed as to Tibbs/BMC; affirmed as to McArthur; remanded for trial on Tibbs/BMC claims |
| Whether Dr. McArthur’s summary judgment was proper | Evidence shows causation for McArthur | No causation evidence apart from Demerol theories | Affirmed for McArthur |
| Whether there are triable issues of fact against Tibbs and BMC independent of Demerol | Dr. Shukan’s depo supports breaches by Tibbs and nurses | Demerol testimony excluded; insufficient causation | Triable issues exist; summary judgment reversed for Tibbs/BMC |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1993) (trial courts gatekeep reliability; factors nonexclusive)
- Watts v. Radiator Specialty Co., 990 So. 2d 143 (Miss. 2008) (consensus data not mandatory; lack of data may justify exclusion)
- Hill v. Mills, 26 So. 3d 322 (Miss. 2010) (need some scientific acceptance if challenged as opposed to Poole)
- Poole v. Avara, 908 So. 2d 716 (Miss. 2005) (consensus not mandatory; Daubert applies; some support needed)
- Treasure Bay Corp. v. Ricard, 967 So.2d 1235 (Miss. 2007) (reliability vs credibility; gatekeeping role of trial court)
- Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc. v. Bailey, 878 So.2d 31 (Miss. 2004) (sufficiency of foundational facts is a question of law for the trial court)