Claiborne Cnty. Hosp. v. Truitt
| Decision Date | 17 March 2022 |
| Docket Number | 2020-IA-01017-SCT |
| Citation | 335 So.3d 562 |
| Parties | CLAIBORNE COUNTY HOSPITAL v. Julius TRUITT |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: GAYE NELL LOTT CURRIE, Jackson
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: ANITA M. STAMPS, LARRY STAMPS, Jackson
BEFORE RANDOLPH, C.J., MAXWELL AND BEAM, JJ.
BEAM, JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:
¶1. This interlocutory appeal arises from a denial by the Claiborne County Circuit Court of a summary-judgment motion. Claiborne County Hospital (CCH) sought summary judgment against Julius Truitt on his medical-negligence claim. CCH claimed Truitt failed to designate a medical expert. Truitt responded to CCH's motion that a genuine issue of material fact exists and that he is exempt from producing sworn expert testimony under the layman's exception allowing lay testimony despite the general rule requiring medical expert testimony in medical-negligence cases.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2. On January 22, 2016, Truitt was transported by ambulance to CCH following an automobile accident. Truitt presented to the emergency room at CCH with complaints of low back pain and left knee pain. Truitt was examined by medical staff and Dr. William Truly.
¶3. Dr. Truly noted Truitt had moderate tenderness and swelling in his left leg with limited weight bearing secondary to pain. Truitt's back was noted to be without tenderness. Dr. Truly ordered a CT scan of the lumbar and cervical spine as well as an X-ray of Truitt's tibia, fibula, and knee. In addition, a urinalysis was ordered. The X-ray of the left knee was performed at 2:33 p.m. and indicated no traumatic injury, no evidence of dislocation or subluxation. CT scans of the lumbar and cervical spine were performed at 2:41 p.m. and 2:45 p.m. The CT scans did not indicate any traumatic injury.
¶4. At approximately 3:19 p.m., Truitt was to provide a urine specimen. CCH avers Truitt was assisted to the restroom by a nurse. After the sample was obtained, Truitt opened the door to hand the specimen to the nurse. During this exchange, a loud popping noise was noted. Truitt lost his balance and was unable to put weight on his left leg. The nurse then assisted him back to bed. At approximately 3:29 p.m., X-rays were done of Truitt's left tibia and fibula, which established he had a fracture of the proximal left tibia. Truitt was subsequently transferred from CCH to the University of Mississippi Medical Center for further treatment.1
¶5. On April 24, 2017, Truitt filed a complaint against CCH alleging medical negligence in his care and treatment at CCH. Specifically, Truitt claims that CCH was negligent by 1) failing to assist him to the restroom to administer a urine sample; 2) failing to give a proper diagnosis of his medical condition; and 3) failing to render treatment consistent with a proper diagnosis.
¶6. CCH served its responses to Truitt's discovery requests. For three years, CCH had not heard from Truitt before it filed a motion for summary judgment alleging Truitt failed to establish the essential elements of a prima facie claim of medical negligence.
¶7. CCH specifically argues that Truitt did not disclose any expert to give opinions that CCH failed to meet the standard of care applicable to it or that such failure caused or contributed to any injury to Truitt. Additionally, CCH attached a sworn affidavit of Cindy McIntyre, R.N., in support of its position that the nursing staff met the appropriate standard of care.
¶8. The motion was set to be heard on Monday, June 8, 2020. On Friday, June 5, 2020, Truitt filed his response and a memorandum in opposition to CCH's motion for summary judgment. Truitt argued in his memorandum that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the layman's exception, or in the alternative, the testimony of his expert witness.
¶9. Within the same response, Truitt also attached his responses to CCH's First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents. CCH's Interrogatory No. 2 requested the identity and opinions of Truitt's experts. Truitt responded:
No sworn affidavit of Dr. Holt was included in Truitt's response to the First Set of Interrogatories.
¶10. Although Truitt provided the name of an expert, he asserted that expert testimony is necessary only as a general rule. Instead, Truitt indicated that he was prepared to establish negligence under the layman's exception. Truitt also included a self-serving affidavit affirming his personal knowledge of facts and his competence to testify.
¶11. The trial court denied CCH's motion for summary judgment, ruling that a genuine issue of material fact was present. In its order denying the motion, the court did not address the layman's exception. The court noted that in Truitt's response to CCH's Interrogatory No. 2, his expert would testify that CCH's breach of the standard of care was a proximate cause or contributing factor to Truitt's injury. CCH's expert nurse, Cindy McIntyre, planned to testify that CCH's staff met and/or exceeded the standard of care.
¶12. The trial court determined that these disputed facts and conflicting expert opinions demonstrated genuine issues of material fact that could affect the outcome of the case. CCH sought interlocutory appeal of the trial court's denial of summary judgment, and this Court granted.
DISCUSSION
Whether the trial court erred by denying CCH's summary-judgment motion.
¶13. A trial court's grant or denial of summary judgment is reviewed de novo.
Leffler v. Sharp , 891 So. 2d 152, 156 (Miss. 2004). Summary judgment is appropriate when "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact[.]" Miss. R. Civ. P. 56(c).
¶14. In asserting his medical-negligence claim, Truitt argues that CCH was negligent by failing to assist him to the restroom, by failing to give a proper diagnosis of his medical condition, and by failing to render treatment consistent with proper diagnosis. CCH filed its motion for summary judgment arguing that because Truitt failed to provide sworn expert testimony, it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
¶15. To establish a prima facie case of medical negligence under Mississippi law, the plaintiff has the burden to establish the following elements through sworn expert testimony: "(1) a duty existed requiring the defendant to conform to a specific standard of conduct for the protection of others against an unreasonable risk of injury; (2) a failure to conform to the required standard occurred; and (3) such breach of duty by the defendant proximately caused an injury to the plaintiff." Miss. Baptist Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Phelps , 254 So. 3d 843, 845 (Miss. 2018) ).
¶16. Truitt asserts that his discovery responses cover both bases of establishing negligence through the layman's exception and his designation of expert witness. We disagree.
¶17. First, Truitt contends expert testimony is not required in this case by virtue of the layman's exception.
¶18. It is true that this Court has "long recognized an exception to the general rule requiring a medical expert in ‘instances where a layman can observe and understand the negligence as a matter of common sense and practical experience.’ " Smith ex rel. Smith v. Gilmore Mem'l Hosp., Inc. , 952 So. 2d 177, 180 (Miss. 2007) (quoting Coleman v. Rice , 706 So. 2d 696, 698 (Miss. 1997) ). However, the layman's exception does not apply to the facts of this case because Truitt's claim involves the rendering of medical services and a nurse's professional judgment for which expert testimony is required.
¶19. The layman's exception applies in medical-negligence cases in which a layman "can observe and understand the negligence as a matter of common sense and practical experience." Palmer v. Anderson Infirmary Benevolent Ass'n , 656 So. 2d 790, 795 (Miss. 1995) (citing Walker ex rel. Walker v. Skiwski , 529 So. 2d 184, 187 (Miss. 1988) ). This exception has also been applied in cases in which "the unauthorized or unexplained leaving of an object inside a patient during surgery," Coleman , 706 So. 2d at 698, or in which patients were given the wrong medication, Dailey v. Methodist Med. Ctr. , 790 So. 2d. 903 (Miss. 2001). The facts of this case do not correspond to prior applications of the layman's exception.
¶20. Additionally, the layman's exception would not apply in this case because Truitt alleged the nurse failed to assist him to the restroom to administer a urine sample. When...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Leasy v. SW Gaming, LLC
... ... Pike Cnty. , 242 So. 3d 847, 853 (Miss. 2018) (alteration in original) (internal ... ...