Young v. Smith
2011 Miss. LEXIS 378
| Miss. | 2011Background
- Young and Carter, as next of kin of Clarence Young, sued for wrongful death medical malpractice against Dr. Smith and Baptist Memorial Hospital-DeSoto (BMH-D) in 2001.
- Dr. Smith served October 11, 2001 with Requests for Admission asserting lack of a qualified medical expert to testify deviation from standard of care and causation.
- Young did not respond within 30–45 days, and in December 2001 Smith/BMH-D moved for summary judgment on deemed admissions under Rule 36(a) and (b).
- Young filed responses on December 21, 2001 denying admissions, naming Dr. Hansen as expert, and seeking summary judgment against doctors, but did not withdraw the admissions at that time.
- Remand occurred after this Court reversed in Young I (2008–2009), leading to renewed summary-judgment motions by BMh-D in 2009 and Young’s seven-year delayed motion to withdraw admissions.
- The circuit court denied the motion to withdraw admissions, granted the renewed motions for summary judgment, and final judgment was entered for Dr. Smith and BMH-D, which Young appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit court abused its discretion in denying withdrawal of admissions. | Young contends Rule 36(b) mandates a two-prong analysis favoring withdrawal. | Smith/BMH-D argue admissions were conclusive and withdrawal discretionary. | No abuse of discretion; denial upheld. |
| Whether summary judgment was proper against Young on the medical-negligence claims. | Young asserts genuine issues of material fact remain after admissions. | Deemed admissions show lack of expert testimony, precluding prima facie case; no genuine issues remain. | Summary judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Educational Placement Services v. Wilson, 487 So.2d 1316 (Miss. 1986) (enforce Rule 36 according to terms; strict interpretation with relief for untimely responses)
- DeBlanc v. Standi, 814 So.2d 796 (Miss. 2002) (two-prong Rule 36(b) test governs withdrawal of admissions; careful application required)
- Earwood v. Reeves, 798 So.2d 508 (Miss. 2001) (emphasizes strict enforcement of Rule 36 and need for compelling justification for untimely responses)
- Langley v. Miles, 956 So.2d 970 (Miss.Ct.App. 2006) (affirming enforcement of Rule 36 where no justifiable excuse offered for default)
- Prime Rx, Inc. v. McKendree, Inc., 917 So.2d 791 (Miss. 2005) (Rule 36 default admissions are conclusive unless withdrawn; discretionary denial analyzed)