Crosthwait v. S. Health Corp.

• Decision Date: 20 September 2011
• Docket Number: No. 2010–CA–00526–COA.,2010–CA–00526–COA.
• Citation: 94 So.3d 1126
• Parties: Ruth Agnes CROSTHWAIT, Appellant v. SOUTHERN HEALTH CORPORATION OF HOUSTON, INC. d/b/a Trace Regional Hospital and Marcia Morgan, Appellees.
• Court: Mississippi Court of Appeals

94 So.3d 1126

Ruth Agnes CROSTHWAIT, Appellant

v.SOUTHERN HEALTH CORPORATION OF HOUSTON, INC. d/b/a Trace Regional Hospital and Marcia Morgan, Appellees.

No. 2010–CA–00526–COA.

Court of Appeals of Mississippi.

June 7, 2011.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 20, 2011.

William C. Walker Jr., attorney for appellant.

John G. Wheeler, Bethany Carol Bryant, attorneys for appellees.

Before GRIFFIS, P.J., MYERS and CARLTON, JJ.

GRIFFIS, P.J., for the Court:

¶ 1. Ruth Agnes Crosthwait fell and broke her hip while an inpatient at Trace Regional Hospital. She brought a lawsuit against Southern Health Corporation of Houston, Inc., which owns and operates the hospital, and Marcia Morgan, a registered nurse who is employed by the hospital. Crosthwait alleged that the hospital negligently caused her to fall after a shower in her hospital room. Crosthwait couched her claim as one for “ordinary” negligence, rather than for malpractice. The hospital contended that Crosthwait's claim was for medical malpractice, in substance, and it sought summary judgment because Crosthwait failed to offer presuit notice, failed to consult with an expert prior to filing suit, and failed to support her claim with expert testimony. The Chickasaw County Circuit Court granted summary judgment to the hospital, and Crosthwait appeals.

FACTS

¶ 2. Crosthwait was admitted to Trace Regional Hospital on May 22, 2008, for treatment of fluctuating blood sugar stemming from diabetes. Crosthwait was eighty-two years of age. She lived alone and generally could walk without assistance, but she sometimes used a quad cane when walking outside. Crosthwait's attending physician instructed her to ring a bell to have a nurse assist her when she used the restroom, which was attached to her hospital room. Over the course of her stay, Crosthwait followed her doctor's instructions. The nurses had observed Crosthwait, but they did not physically assist her.

¶ 3. On the afternoon of May 24, Crosthwait was preparing to leave the hospital, and she decided to take a shower. Crosthwait called for Morgan, who assisted her with undressing. Crosthwait walked into the bathroom unassisted. Morgan offered Crosthwait a shower stool, which she accepted. Morgan then left and returned with a chair, which she placed in the shower. Morgan then turned on the shower for Crosthwait. While Crosthwait showered, Morgan told Crosthwait she would have to leave to attend another patient. After some time, Morgan returned and turned off the shower. During the shower, the bathroom floor became wet. What happened next was disputed.

¶ 4. According to Crosthwait, water had puddled on the bathroom floor during the shower because the shower curtain was not closed. Crosthwait felt Morgan had been gone for a long time, and Crosthwait had been unable to turn off the water herself or move around in the shower because of the size of the shower chair. When Morgan returned, Crosthwait asked her to turn the water off, which she did. Crosthwait then asked Morgan for a towel, and Morgan handed her one. Crosthwait's shoes had been on the bathroom floor during the shower, and they were wet. Crosthwait tried to put on the wet shoes, but she could not. She asked Morgan to get some dry shoes, apparently referring to another pair of shoes she had brought with her to the hospital. Morgan stated that she did not have any shoes for Crosthwait. Morgan offered Crosthwait a single towel, which Crosthwait used to dry herself. When Crosthwait was preparing to leave the bathroom, Morgan was standing in the doorway between Crosthwait's hospital room and the hallway outside. Crosthwait stated, “I need some help—I've got to get out of here,” several times, but Morgan did not offer to assist her. Crosthwait then tried to walk back to her bed, but she slipped and fell while passing through the doorway between the bathroom and the hospital room.

¶ 5. Morgan stated in her deposition that she laid two towels on the floor before Crosthwait started showering. After the shower, Morgan helped Crosthwait dry herself, and Morgan used several more towels to dry the floor. Crosthwait refused to use her shoes, even after Morgan had dried them, so Morgan attempted to lead her back to the bed without them. Morgan took one hand, and Crosthwait used her quad cane with the other. While passing through the doorway from the restroom to the hospital room, which was not wide enough for both women to walk side by side, Crosthwait fell.

¶ 6. It was undisputed that the fall caused Crosthwait significant injury, including a broken hip and a loss of mobility and independence. Crosthwait filed suit against the hospital and Morgan. Crosthwait's complaint alleged that the following were the proximate causes of her fall and injuries:

(a) Failure to properly assist [Crosthwait] in taking a shower, including failure to provide an appropriate shower stool and failure to prevent excessive water from accumulating on the floor outside the shower;

(b) Failure to assist [Crosthwait] in getting out of the shower;

(c) Failure to assist [Crosthwait] as she stepped on the floor while exiting the shower;

(d) Failure to provide [Crosthwait] with proper footwear before she stepped on the wet floor when exiting the shower;

(e) Failure to wipe up the wet floor before [Crosthwait] exited the shower; [and]

(f) Failure to do other reasonable acts necessary to prevent [Crosthwait's] fall.

¶ 7. After discovery was completed, the hospital filed a motion for summary judgment. The hospital argued that Crosthwait's action was for medical malpractice and that summary judgment was proper because, among other things, Crosthwait needed expert testimony to establish the duty of care owed to her by the hospital and to show whether that duty had been breached. Crosthwait responded that the claim was for ordinary negligence, for which expert testimony was not required. The circuit court granted summary judgment to the hospital, and Crosthwait appeals.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 8. We review a trial court's grant of summary judgment de novo. Treasure Bay Corp. v. Ricard, 967 So.2d 1235, 1238 (¶ 10) (Miss.2007). This Court “examines all the evidentiary matters before it—admissions in pleadings, answers to interrogatories, depositions, affidavits, etc.” City of Jackson v. Sutton, 797 So.2d 977, 979 (¶ 7) (Miss.2001) (citations omitted). The moving party has the burden of demonstrating that no genuine issue of material fact exists, and the nonmoving party must be given the benefit of doubt concerning the existence of a material fact. Id. “If no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, summary judgment should be entered in that party's favor.” Monsanto Co. v. Hall, 912 So.2d 134, 136 (¶ 5) (Miss.2005). “A fact is material if it tends to resolve any of the issues properly raised by the parties.” Moss v. Batesville Casket Co., Inc., 935 So.2d 393, 398 (¶ 16) (Miss.2006) (citation and quotations omitted).

DISCUSSION

¶ 9. It is axiomatic that to recover for negligence, a plaintiff must prove the elements of a negligence claim, which are: (1) duty, (2) breach of duty, (3) causation, and (4) damages. See, e.g., Fisher v. Deer, 942 So.2d 217, 219 (¶ 6) (Miss.Ct.App.2006) (citation omitted). Duty and breach of that duty establish the negligence, while causation and damages are required to show that the plaintiff is entitled to recover for harm resulting from the negligent act. Id.

¶ 10. Malpractice is a special kind of negligence claim that involves professional services. Malpractice claims generally must be supported by expert testimony to “identify and articulate the requisite standard that was not complied with [and] establish that the failure was the proximate cause, or proximate contributing cause, of the alleged injuries.” Hubbard v. Wansley, 954 So.2d 951, 957 (¶ 12) (Miss.2007) (quoting Barner v. Gorman, 605 So.2d 805, 809 (Miss.1992)). The only exception to the expert-testimony requirement is where the alleged professional negligence is within the scope of a layman's common knowledge. Powell v. Methodist Health Care–Jackson Hosps., 876 So.2d 347, 348 (¶ 4) (Miss.2004).

¶ 11. On appeal, Crosthwait contends that she did not have to offer expert testimony because her claim is only for “ordinary” negligence, not malpractice. To distinguish between malpractice claims and ordinary negligence, a court should consider: “(1) whether the claim pertains to an action that occurred within the course of a professional relationship; and (2) whether the claim raises questions of professional judgment beyond the realm of common knowledge and experience.” 65 C.J.S. Negligence § 160 (2010). While Crosthwait disagrees, this Court finds that her claim arose in the course of professional medical services. Although showering was not necessarily a medical procedure, in this case, Crosthwait was an inpatient at the hospital. Crosthwait's attending physician had instructed her to seek a nurse's assistance when using the restroom. When Morgan assisted Crosthwait, she was acting as a registered nurse attending to a patient in her care. Thus, the real question presented by this appeal is whether Crosthwait's claim raises questions of Morgan's professional judgment outside a layman's common knowledge. If so, Crosthwait failed to meet her burden of proof because she did not offer expert testimony establishing Morgan's duty of care or a breach of that duty.

¶ 12. “Our general rule is that medical negligence may be established only by expert medical testimony, with an exception for instances where a layman can observe and understand the negligence as a matter of common sense and practical experience.” Coleman v. Rice, 706 So.2d 696, 698 (¶ 10) (Miss.1997) (quoting Erby v. N. Miss. Med. Ctr., 654 So.2d 495, 500 (Miss.1995)). Examples of the layman's exception would be a case involving “the unauthorized and unexplained leaving of an object inside a patient during surgery,”...