Shannon Westfall v. Randy Goggins
247 So. 3d 244
Miss. Ct. App. Hist.2017Background
- On June 3, 2013 Shannon Westfall was injured in an auto collision; she and her husband sued the driver (Goggins) and his employer (Carnes) for negligence and loss of consortium.
- In discovery Shannon answered interrogatories and was deposed; she also provided medical authorizations. Her discovery responses stated minimal pre‑existing shoulder problems (a 2010 left‑shoulder muscle spasm) and no prior right‑shoulder treatment.
- Defendants obtained Shannon’s medical records and argued those records showed multiple pre‑accident treatments for both shoulders that contradicted her discovery answers. They moved to dismiss under Miss. R. Civ. P. 37, seeking dismissal with prejudice.
- At a hearing Shannon’s counsel was allowed to supplement the record with a provider affidavit to correct a disputed entry; eight months later the circuit court dismissed the complaint with prejudice.
- The Court of Appeals reversed and the Mississippi Court of Appeals (lead opinion) reviewed whether dismissal was appropriate under the Pierce framework and Rule 37, ultimately reversing the circuit court and remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal with prejudice was appropriate under Miss. R. Civ. P. 37 for alleged false discovery answers | Shannon: omissions/confusion were not intentional misrepresentations; medical authorizations were provided and records showed no torn rotator cuff pre‑accident | Defendants: Shannon willfully misled discovery by failing to disclose multiple pre‑accident shoulder treatments and prescriptions; only dismissal suffices | Reversed dismissal: court held dismissal is an extreme sanction reserved for egregious, knowing falsehoods; this case was not extreme and lesser sanctions (fees/costs) were appropriate |
| Whether submission of medical authorizations undermines a finding of willful misrepresentation | Shannon: providing authorizations gave defendants original records and weighs against finding intent to deceive | Defendants: providing releases does not excuse false answers; plaintiff still obligated to disclose truthfully | Held: medical authorization weighs against finding intentional deceit here; it undermines conclusion of blatant misrepresentation |
| Standard for evaluating discovery‑sanction dismissal (Pierce factors) and whether they were satisfied | Shannon: Pierce requires extreme misconduct; factors here do not support dismissal | Defendants: Pierce allows dismissal where plaintiff acts in bad faith and obstructs discovery | Held: applied Pierce—dismissal permitted only in most extreme cases; circuit court abused discretion because conduct was not as egregious as cases upholding dismissal |
| Whether trial court considered lesser sanctions before imposing death‑penalty sanction | Shannon: trial court should consider lesser sanctions (fees, warnings, conditional dismissal) | Defendants: the extent of nondisclosure justified ultimate sanction | Held: trial court did not justify that lesser sanctions would be futile; dismissal was disproportionate and reversible |
Key Cases Cited
- Pierce v. Heritage Properties, Inc., 688 So.2d 1385 (Miss. 1997) (establishes framework and admonition that dismissal for discovery violations is appropriate only in the most extreme circumstances)
- Kinzie v. Belk Department Stores, L.P., 164 So.3d 974 (Miss. 2015) (explains limiting principle: reversal where violation was isolated or ambiguous and lesser sanctions could suffice)
- Scoggins v. Ellzey Beverages, Inc., 743 So.2d 990 (Miss. 1999) (affirms dismissal where plaintiff completely misrepresented extensive medical history and procedures)
- Ashmore v. Mississippi Authority on Educational Television, 148 So.3d 977 (Miss. 2014) (affirms dismissal for concealment of prior surgeries and clear falsifications)
- Wood ex rel. Wood v. Biloxi Public School District, 757 So.2d 190 (Miss. 2000) (reverses dismissal where the contradicted discovery response was ambiguous and not part of a pattern)
- Am. Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Days Inn of Winona, 720 So.2d 178 (Miss. 1998) (reminds courts to consider lesser sanctions before imposing dismissal)