50 So. 3d 1032
Miss. Ct. App.2010Background
- Triplett underwent elective hip-replacement surgery on January 6, 2004; she suffered a postoperative stroke the next day and died in 2006.
- Heirs sued River Region Medical Corp., Dr. Porter, Dr. Adams, Stone, Howard, and others (Does 1-20) for negligence, medical malpractice, respondeat superior, breach of contract, and punitive damages.
- Before trial, the circuit court granted summary judgment to River Region as to Dr. McMillin's liability under respondeat superior due to heirs’ failure to provide qualified expert testimony establishing the standard of care, breach, and causation.
- During trial, a juror who worked for a law firm that had done legal work for River Region was seated despite heirs’ motion to strike for cause; heirs declined to use a peremptory strike.
- Opening statements included a statement about a Virginia doctor; heirs sought a mistrial which the court denied; prejudice was addressed by cautioning the jury to disregard the remark.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was summary judgment proper on Dr. McMillin’s liability? | Triplett heirs contend they provided sufficient expert testimony. | River Region argues heirs failed to show a qualified expert for standard of care and causation. | Yes; summary judgment affirmed. |
| Was the juror with law-firm ties properly seated? | Heirs allege potential bias, seeking strike for cause. | Juror declared impartial and not biased. | Yes; no error in seating the juror. |
| Was the mistrial motion properly denied after prejudicial opening remarks? | Mistrial warranted due to prejudicial statements. | Contemporaneous objection rule barred mistrial; remarks were cured. | Yes; no reversible error. |
| Was the surgical consent form properly excluded and the Badr affidavit properly admitted? | Consent form and affidavit should be admitted to prove lack of informed consent. | Lack of informed consent not listed in pretrial order; affidavit admissible as substantive. | |
| Yes; no reversible error on either issue. | |||
| Did the court err in jury instructions regarding eggshell-skull doctrine? | P-25 correctly instructs eggshell-skull doctrine. | D-13 more accurately tailored to case facts regarding patient disclosure and causation. | No reversible error; D-13 proper, P-25 rejected. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hubbard v. Wansley, 954 So.2d 951 (Miss. 2007) (testifying experts require familiarity with specialty; broad knowledge insufficient)
- Sheffield v. Goodwin, 740 So.2d 854 (Miss. 1999) (expert testimony scope determines admissibility; standard for expert)
- Slatery v. Ne. Miss. Contract Procurement, Inc., 747 So.2d 257 (Miss. 1999) (summary-judgment standard in professional-negligence cases)
- Meena v. Wilburn, 603 So.2d 866 (Miss. 1992) (contemporaneous-objection rule for mistrial decision)
- Coho Res., Inc. v. McCarthy, 829 So.2d 1 (Miss. 2002) (abuse-of-discretion standard for mistrial decisions)
- Franklin Corp. v. Tedford, 18 So.3d 215 (Miss. 2009) (instruction-cality assessment: correct law and evidence)