University of Mississippi Medical Center v. Vincent Kelly, 358 So.3d 1054

On August 14, 2019 Vincent Kelly suffered a crushed left foot in a workplace forklift accident; initial care at Mississippi Baptist and transfer to UMMC documented toe lacerations and multiple toe fractures.
UMMC provided antibiotics, pain control, wound care, and an orthopedic reduction; Kelly was instructed to avoid weight bearing and follow up in ten days with return precautions for neurovascular changes or color changes.
Kelly returned on August 19 with uncontrolled pain and reported his third and fourth toes had turned black; Dr. Patrick Bergin evaluated and on August 20 amputated the third and fourth toes after finding them dysvascular and obtaining positive wound cultures.
Kelly sued for medical malpractice alleging UMMC’s care during the August 14 visit caused infection necessitating amputation; UMMC countered the crush injury itself caused the infection and amputation.
At summary judgment, Kelly relied on an affidavit from Dr. Joseph White (an emergency medicine physician) but did not attach Dr. White’s CV; UMMC moved to exclude the affidavit as showing neither qualifications nor the elements required to prove malpractice.
The Mississippi Supreme Court held Dr. White was not shown qualified under MRE 702, therefore his opinion was inadmissible and, absent admissible expert proof, reversed the denial of summary judgment and rendered judgment for UMMC.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Dr. White was qualified to opine on the applicable standard of care and causation	Dr. White is a licensed physician and emergency-medicine practitioner whose affidavit raises factual disputes about UMMC’s care	No CV or record evidence of training/experience in treating crush injuries, orthopedic care, or related infections; qualifications not shown	Court: Dr. White not shown qualified under Rule 702; trial court abused its discretion in admitting him
Whether Kelly’s malpractice claim survives summary judgment without admissible expert testimony	Dr. White’s affidavit creates genuine issues of material fact about negligence and causation	Medical malpractice requires expert proof of standard, breach, and causation; without admissible expert opinion Kelly cannot carry burden at trial	Court: Without admissible expert testimony, Kelly failed to meet prima facie case; summary judgment for UMMC rendered
Whether absent a CV or declaration of specialty a party may rely on a generic physician affidavit to defeat summary judgment	Kelly relied on affidavit asserting licensing, training, and experience and noted a CV was "attached"	The referenced CV was not attached to the record and cannot be considered; burden is on proponent to establish expert admissibility	Court: Proponent must establish qualifications in the record; omission fatal to admissibility

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (framework for admissibility of expert testimony)
Clark v. State, 315 So. 3d 987 (Miss. 2021) (articulates two‑fold Rule 702/Daubert inquiry)
Worthy v. McNair, 37 So. 3d 609 (Miss. 2010) (scope of witness’s knowledge controls admissibility)
Thompson v. Carter, 518 So. 2d 609 (Miss. 1987) (expert must know a great deal about subject matter)
McDonald v. Mem’l Hosp. at Gulfport, 8 So. 3d 175 (Miss. 2009) (expert must have practice/experience in the specific field at issue)
Norman v. Anderson Reg’l Med. Ctr., 262 So. 3d 520 (Miss. 2019) (elements of medical negligence require expert proof)
Sheffield v. Goodwin, 740 So. 2d 854 (Miss. 1999) (absent obvious layman-appreciable error, expert testimony is generally required)