Adams v. Baptist Memorial Hospital-Desoto, No. 2006-IA-00455-SCT.
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi |
| Writing for the Court | Randolph, Justice |
| Citation | 965 So.2d 652 |
| Docket Number | No. 2006-IA-00455-SCT. |
| Decision Date | 16 August 2007 |
| Parties | O. Tuck ADAMS, Individually, and as Administrator of the Estate of Mary Jane Adams, Deceased v. BAPTIST MEMORIAL HOSPITAL-DESOTO, INC., Michael A. Dorrity, M.D., Jolee Rutherford, M.D., Mandalay Resort Group f/k/a Circus Circus Enterprises, Inc., and Circus Circus Mississippi, Inc. d/b/a Gold Strike Casino Resort. |
v.
BAPTIST MEMORIAL HOSPITAL-DESOTO, INC., Michael A. Dorrity, M.D., Jolee Rutherford, M.D., Mandalay Resort Group f/k/a Circus Circus Enterprises, Inc., and Circus Circus Mississippi, Inc. d/b/a Gold Strike Casino Resort.
[965 So.2d 653]
Sara Bailey Russo, Ralph Edwin Chapman, Dana J. Swan, Clarksdale, attorneys for appellant.
Walter Alan Davis, Oxford, Bradley Keith Overcash, Gainsville, L. Carl Hagwood, Eugenia G. McGown, John Ramsey McCarroll, III, attorneys for appellees.
Before WALLER, P.J., DICKINSON and RANDOLPH, JJ.
RANDOLPH, Justice, for the Court.
¶ 1. On November 12, 2004, Mary Jane Adams ("Mary Jane"), a resident of Richmond, Virginia, fell at the Goldstrike Casino ("Goldstrike") in Tunica County, Mississippi, and sustained a neck injury, severe chest wall pains, and multiple rib fractures. Mary Jane was transported to Baptist Memorial Hospital-DeSoto, ("Baptist Memorial") in DeSoto County, Mississippi. Mary Jane informed personnel at Baptist Memorial she was on Coumadin therapy, and she also was wearing a medic alert bracelet to indicate such. While at Baptist Memorial she was treated by Doctors Michael Dorrity ("Dr. Dorrity") and Jolee Rutherford ("Dr. Rutherford").
¶ 2. Mary Jane was released the next day and given permission by her physicians to fly home to Richmond. The following morning, her husband attempted to rouse her, but he was unable to do so. On Mary Jane's death record, the cause of death is listed as blunt trauma to the chest suffered as the result of her fall at the Goldstrike.
¶ 3. This interlocutory appeal stems from a Complaint filed by Tuck Adams ("Adams"), Mary Jane's husband, against Baptist Memorial Hospital-DeSoto, Inc.; Dr. Dorrity; Dr. Rutherford;1 Mandalay Resort Group f/k/a Circus Circus Enterprises, Inc.; and Circus Circus Mississippi, Inc. The Complaint was filed in Tunica County. The Complaint charged Mandalay Resort Group f/k/a Circus Circus and Circus Circus Mississippi with negligence in the maintenance of their casino, the Goldstrike, in Tunica, Mississippi. The Complaint charged the medical defendants with negligence in the treatment and care of Mary Jane.
¶ 4. Circus Circus Mississippi d/b/a Goldstrike Casino filed its Answer.2 Baptist
Memorial filed a separate Answer claiming, inter alia, that venue in Tunica County was not proper as to it, and that venue was proper only in DeSoto County, where Baptist Memorial is located. Baptist Memorial later filed a separate Motion to Transfer Venue, citing Miss.Code Ann. Sect. 11-11-3(3) (Rev.2004), and averring the acts of alleged medical negligence by the medical defendants all occurred only in DeSoto County. Drs. Dorrity and Rutherford filed a separate Answer, as well as a Motion to Transfer Venue to DeSoto County.
¶ 5. Goldstrike filed a Response to and Joinder in the Motion to Transfer Venue filed by Baptist Memorial. Goldstrike asserted a forum non conveniens argument that it is located adjacent to DeSoto County, that many of its employees who would be witnesses in the case were residents of DeSoto County, and that venue as to the majority of the defendants was proper in DeSoto County.
¶ 6. In Response to the Motions to Transfer, Adams argued that pursuant to Miss.Code Ann. Sect. 11-11-3(1)(a)(i), the action could be brought in Tunica County, where "a substantial event that caused the injury occurred." See Miss.Code Ann. § 11-11-3(1)(a)(I) (Rev.2004). Adams asserted Goldstrike's failure to maintain reasonably safe premises precipitated the injury and ultimate death of his wife. Adams further argues that if other, non-medical defendants were being sued, subsection 1 of Miss.Code Ann. Sect. 11-11-3 would apply.
¶ 7. A hearing was held on the medical defendants' Motion to Transfer Venue, as well as Goldstrike's Motion for Joinder in Baptist Memorial's Motion to Transfer Venue. The trial court correctly granted the Motion to Transfer as to the medical defendants and ordered that the action against the medical defendants be transferred to DeSoto County. However, the trial judge denied Goldstrike's Motion. Before the trial court entered its Order, Adams filed a Motion to Reconsider and to Stay Entry of Order. Adams argued that this is a wrongful death case and that the case could not be severed pursuant to Miss.Code Ann. Sect. 11-7-13, which states, in pertinent part, "[T]here shall be but one suit for the same death which shall ensue for the benefit of all parties concerned. . . ." Adams cited Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 82(c) and this Court's decision in Long v. McKinney, 897 So.2d 160 (Miss.2004).
¶ 8. In its Response, Baptist Memorial pleaded the facts sub judice were distinguishable from McKinney and further argued that if Adams's contention that the claims against the defendants should not be severed was correct, then pursuant to Miss.Code Ann. Sect. 11-11-3(3), the only permissible venue for the one suit was DeSoto County.
¶ 9. The trial court affirmed its earlier decision by granting the Motion to Transfer to DeSoto County as to the medical defendants only. The trial judge again denied the joinder request of Goldstrike. The trial court "[was] cognizant that this order will in effect constitute a severance of the claims presented against the Defendants in this case."
¶ 10. Adams filed a second Motion to Reconsider, which was denied by the trial court. Adams appeals from this denial and Order Granting Transfer of Venue as
to the three medical defendants. Adams presents the following issues on interlocutory appeal:
I. Whether the trial erred in severing the case?
II. Whether the trial court erred in granting the Motions to Transfer Venue?
¶ 11. The resolution of this case requires the Court to employ separate standards of review.
"In reviewing a trial court's ruling on a motion to change venue, this Court applies the abuse of discretion standard". . . . A trial judge's ruling on such an application "will not be disturbed on appeal unless it clearly appears that there has been an abuse of discretion or that the discretion has not been justly or properly exercised under the circumstances of the case."
Wayne General Hospital v. Hayes, 868 So.2d 997, 1001 (Miss.2004) (citing Guice v. Miss. Life Ins. Co., 836 So.2d 756, 758 (Miss.2003)).
¶ 12. Additionally, the Court must interpret a statute, and "statutory interpretation is a matter of law which this Court reviews de novo." Franklin Collection Serv., Inc. v. Kyle, 955 So.2d 284, 287 (Miss.2007) (citations omitted).
I. Whether the trial court erred in severing the case?
¶ 13. Adams argues there is no legal basis to sever, relying on Miss.Code Ann. Sect.11-7-13 and Long v. McKinney, 897 So.2d 160 (Miss.2004). The medical defendants, as well as Goldstrike, agree the case should not be severed pursuant to Miss.Code Ann. Sect. 11-7-13. All parties are correct. An action for wrongful death cannot be severed pursuant to Miss.Code Ann. Sect. 11-7-13 and this Court's holding in Long. Severance of this case is violative of Miss.Code Ann. Sect. 11-7-13 and would certainly not promote judicial efficiency. See M.R.C.P. 1.
¶ 14. Severance of this action is also inconsistent with Miss.Code Ann. Sect. 85-5-7 (Rev.1999), which addresses the limitation of joint and several liability for damages caused by two or more persons; contribution between joint tortfeasors; and determination of percentage of fault. Adams correctly asserts in his brief that separate trials would create, and almost certainly would result in, inconsistent holdings, including apportionment of fault. This analysis is applicable not only in wrongful death actions, but in other suits as well, because splitting the cause of action is prohibited by prior decisions of this Court and most certainly would lead to inconsistent verdicts by the separate juries. Miss.Code Ann. Sect.11-7-13 and 85-5-7 dispassionately eliminate this conundrum. See Alexander v. Elzie, 621 So.2d 909, 910 (Miss.1992) (Mississippi is among the majority of states which do not allow splitting a cause of action).
¶ 15. For these reasons, the trial court erred in severing this wrongful death case.
II. Whether the trial court erred in granting the Motions to Transfer Venue?
¶ 16. Adams asserts that while DeSoto County may also be a proper venue for this action, the action was properly brought in Tunica County and should not be transferred. The medical defendants and Goldstrike counter that the only permissible venue for all defendants is DeSoto County, pursuant to Miss.Code Ann. Sect. 11-11-3(3). The pertinent portions of Miss.Code Ann. Sect. 11-11-3 state:
(1) (a)(i) Civil actions of which the circuit court has original jurisdiction shall be commenced in the county where the defendant resides, or, if a corporation, in the county of its principal place of business, or in the county where a substantial alleged act or omission occurred or where a substantial event that caused the injury occurred. . . .
(3) Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, any action against a licensed physician, osteopath, dentist, nurse, nurse-practitioner, physician assistant, psychologist, pharmacist, podiatrist, optometrist, chiropractor, institution for the aged or infirm, hospital or licensed pharmacy, including any legal entity which may be liable for their acts or omissions, for malpractice, negligence, error, omission, mistake, breach of standard of care or the unauthorized rendering of professional services shall be brought only in the county in which the alleged act or omission occurred. . . .
¶ 17. The medical defendants suggest that the meaning of the word "notwithstanding" is clear and therefore,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Corrothers v. State, NO. 2012-DP-00208-SCT
...we can thereby confirm they were presented to the trial court for its consideration. See Adams v. Baptist Mem'l Hosp.-DeSoto, Inc., 965 So. 2d 652, 657 (¶ 25) ("This Court 'may not act upon or consider matters which do not appear in the record and must confine itself to what actually does a......
-
Palermo v. Letourneau Technologies, Inc., Civil Action No. 5:07-cv-78 (DCB)(JMR).
...that defendants be tried together when there is joint and several liability for damages. Adams v. Baptist Memorial Hospital-Desoto Inc., 965 So.2d 652, 655 (Miss.2007). However, as even the plaintiffs seem to admit, there is no basis for finding joint and several liability for damages betwe......
-
Corrothers v. State, No. 2012–DP–00208–SCT.
...we can thereby confirm they were presented to the trial court for its consideration. See Adams v. Baptist Mem'l Hosp.–DeSoto, Inc., 965 So.2d 652, 657 ( ¶ 25) (Miss.2007) (“This Court ‘may not act upon or consider matters which do not appear in the record and must confine itself to what act......
-
In re Rules Procedure, No. 89-R-99001-SCT
...§11-11-3 is only appropriate in the county where the alleged malpractice occurred. See Adams v. Baptist Memorial Hospital-DeSoto, Inc., 965 So. 2d 652, 657-58 (Miss. 2007).Rule 82(e) authorizes a motion to transfer venue to another court having proper venue within the state based upon forum......
-
Corrothers v. State, NO. 2012-DP-00208-SCT
...we can thereby confirm they were presented to the trial court for its consideration. See Adams v. Baptist Mem'l Hosp.-DeSoto, Inc., 965 So. 2d 652, 657 (¶ 25) ("This Court 'may not act upon or consider matters which do not appear in the record and must confine itself to what actually d......
-
Palermo v. Letourneau Technologies, Inc., Civil Action No. 5:07-cv-78 (DCB)(JMR).
...that defendants be tried together when there is joint and several liability for damages. Adams v. Baptist Memorial Hospital-Desoto Inc., 965 So.2d 652, 655 (Miss.2007). However, as even the plaintiffs seem to admit, there is no basis for finding joint and several liability for damages betwe......
-
Corrothers v. State, No. 2012–DP–00208–SCT.
...we can thereby confirm they were presented to the trial court for its consideration. See Adams v. Baptist Mem'l Hosp.–DeSoto, Inc., 965 So.2d 652, 657 ( ¶ 25) (Miss.2007) (“This Court ‘may not act upon or consider matters which do not appear in the record and must confine itself to what act......
-
In re Rules Procedure, No. 89-R-99001-SCT
...§11-11-3 is only appropriate in the county where the alleged malpractice occurred. See Adams v. Baptist Memorial Hospital-DeSoto, Inc., 965 So. 2d 652, 657-58 (Miss. 2007).Rule 82(e) authorizes a motion to transfer venue to another court having proper venue within the state based upon forum......