Tomeka Handy v. Madison County Nursing Home
192 So. 3d 1005
| Miss. | 2016Background
- Tomeka Handy sued Madison County Nursing Home (and initially Madison County) for wrongful death, alleging failure to prevent/detect a bowel obstruction that caused decedent's death.
- Scheduling orders set multiple expert designation deadlines; Handy repeatedly missed those deadlines and exchanged emails with defense counsel about extensions.
- Nursing home moved for summary judgment arguing Handy had not produced any sworn expert testimony required to prove medical negligence.
- Handy filed unsworn expert designations shortly before and after the motion, but submitted no expert affidavits in opposition to the summary judgment motion and did not invoke Rule 56(f) for more time.
- Circuit court granted summary judgment because Handy failed to produce competent, sworn expert evidence; Handy later submitted affidavits with a motion for reconsideration, which the court denied as untimely and not newly discovered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether unsworn expert designations suffice to oppose summary judgment in medical-malpractice case | Handy: designations show experts were identified and defendant suffered no prejudice; thus summary judgment improper | Nursing home: Rule 56 requires sworn evidence (affidavits); unsworn designations are hearsay and insufficient | Held: Unsworn designations insufficient; summary judgment proper because Handy failed burden of production |
| Whether the grant of summary judgment operated as an improper discovery sanction (dismissal) requiring Lumpkin factors | Handy: late designations were excusable and court effectively dismissed case as sanction without considering Lumpkin factors | Nursing home: moved under Rule 56, not for sanctions; court applied summary judgment standard | Held: Court did not impose a discovery sanction; it applied Rule 56 correctly and Lumpkin does not control |
| Whether Handy was entitled to additional time or continuance under Rule 56(f) | Handy: needed more time to obtain sworn affidavits and could cure deficiency | Nursing home: no Rule 56(f) motion filed; deadlines had been extended multiple times | Held: Handy never filed Rule 56(f); failure to seek continuance meant court properly considered record as submitted |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by denying motion for reconsideration that produced affidavits after judgment | Handy: post-judgment affidavits cured the deficiency and justified reconsideration | Nursing home: affidavits were available earlier and Handy sought a second bite at the apple | Held: Denial affirmed — affidavits were not newly discovered and should have been submitted with the summary judgment response |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. Pace, 122 So. 3d 66 (affirming summary judgment where plaintiffs failed to produce expert testimony)
- Hubbard v. Wansley, 954 So. 2d 951 (expert testimony required to prove standard of care and proximate causation in medical-malpractice claims)
- Ill. Central R.R. v. Jackson, 179 So. 3d 1037 (materials opposing summary judgment must be sworn; party’s unsworn statements about experts are hearsay)
- Karpinsky v. Am. Nat’l Ins. Co., 109 So. 3d 84 (party with burden at trial bears burden of production at summary judgment)
- Miss. Power & Light Co. v. Lumpkin, 725 So. 2d 721 (factors trial court should consider before imposing extreme discovery sanctions)
- Fowler v. White, 85 So. 3d 287 (denial of reconsideration appropriate where evidence was available at time of summary judgment)
- Barner v. Gorman, 605 So. 2d 805 (expert must identify requisite standard and proximate causation in malpractice cases)
- Daniels v. GNB, Inc., 629 So. 2d 595 (summary judgment procedural burdens explained)