Stacey Mitchell and Bryan Mitchell, For themselves, and as next friend to Lauren Mitchell, a minor v. The Jackson Clinic, P.A.
2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 240
| Tenn. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Stacey and Bryan Mitchell sue Dr. James Payne, Dr. William Woods, and The Jackson Clinic for neonatal jaundice-related malpractice based on Lauren Mitchell's kernicterus from elevated bilirubin in 2003.
- The complaint alleges failure to order/perform tests, to treat jaundice, to inform the parents, and to refer for further bilirubin testing, resulting in permanent brain injury.
- The Mitchells designated one expert, Dr. Stephen Winbery, whose testimony was challenged as incompetent under the Tennessee Medical Malpractice Act (Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-115).
- The trial court granted summary judgment after striking Winbery’s testimony as not competent under Shipley v. Williams; the Mitchells appealed.
- The court of appeals upheld the exclusion of Winbery’s testimony and affirmed the summary judgment, then remanded for discretionary-cost determinations.
- Discretionary costs awarded to the appellees were challenged by the Mitchells, who argued some costs were excluded under Rule 54.04.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Winbery was competent to testify | Mitchells: Winbery qualifies under §29-26-115(b) and Shipley allowing relevant expertise. | Appellees: Winbery not competent because emergency physician, not practicing relevant pediatrics in year preceding injury. | Yes; court affirmed exclusion of Winbery and summary judgment. |
| Whether excluding Winbery’s testimony entitles Appellees to summary judgment | Mitchells argue genuine issues of material fact survive without Winbery. | Appellees contend lack of competent expert defeats essential elements of negligence claim. | Affirmed summary judgment. |
| Whether discretionary costs award was proper | Mitchells contend costs included impermissible items (videographers, other non-compensable charges). | Appellees assert costs were reasonable and within rule, with proper itemization in record. | Discretionary costs affirmed; no reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Shipley v. Williams, 350 S.W.3d 527 (Tenn. 2011) (distinguishes elements (a) vs. competency (b) for expert testimony)
- Stovall v. Clark, 113 S.W.3d 715 (Tenn. 2003) (proof of elements with expert testimony required)
- Williams v. Baptist Mem'l Hosp., 193 S.W.3d 545 (Tenn. 2006) (expert testimony standards in medical malpractice)
- Robinson v. LeCorps, 83 S.W.3d 718 (Tenn. 2002) (medical malpractice expert requirements)
- Martin v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 271 S.W.3d 76 (Tenn. 2008) (summary judgment standard and burden-shifting)
- Blair v. W. Town Mall, 130 S.W.3d 761 (Tenn. 2004) (evidence and summary judgment considerations)
- Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Jefferson, 104 S.W.3d 13 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002) (discretionary costs standards and review)
- Eldridge v. Eldridge, 42 S.W.3d 82 (Tenn. 2001) (abuse of discretion standard generally applied)
- Perdue v. Green Branch Mining Co., 837 S.W.2d 56 (Tenn. 1992) (factors for discretionary decisions)
- Beecher v. Lee Med., Inc., 312 S.W.3d 515 (Tenn. 2010) (abuse of discretion in evidentiary rulings)