Murphy v. William Carey Univ.
| Decision Date | 11 August 2020 |
| Docket Number | NO. 2018-CA-00910-COA,2018-CA-00910-COA |
| Citation | 314 So.3d 112 |
| Parties | Abigail K. MURPHY, Appellant v. WILLIAM CAREY UNIVERSITY, Dean James Turner, and Dr. Richard Margaitis, Appellees |
| Court | Mississippi Court of Appeals |
BEFORE CARLTON, P.J., GREENLEE AND McCARTY, JJ.
GREENLEE, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1. This case is about a medical student's injuries following the administration of a sacral spring test. Abigail Murphy, a student of osteopathic medicine at William Carey University (William Carey), filed suit in the Forrest County Circuit Court against William Carey, Dean James Turner, and her faculty proctor, Dr. Richard Margaitis (collectively, the "Appellees"), alleging negligence, breach of contract, and negligent hiring, training, and/or supervision. After two years of discovery, the Appellees moved for summary judgment, contending there were no genuine issues of material fact and that they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The circuit court granted the Appellees’ motion for summary judgment on each claim and dismissed the action. On appeal, Murphy argues the circuit court erred. Because we find that there are genuine issues of material fact underlying Murphy's negligence claim, we reverse the circuit court's finding of summary judgment on that claim and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We affirm the circuit court's grant of summary judgment on Murphy's claims of breach of contract and negligent hiring, training and/or supervision.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2. On April 2, 2013, Murphy and her classmates participated in a "Clinical Skills Assessment" (CSA), which included a practical and written examination. For the practical exam, Murphy was paired with fellow classmate Nate Bell and proctored by assistant professor Dr. Richard Margaitis. During the exam, Murphy and Bell took turns performing manual therapies
on each other. At one point, Bell was assigned to assess Murphy for sacroiliac joint dysfunction. The assessment required Bell to perform a sacral spring test on Murphy's lumbosacral junction, or lower back.1 Bell attempted to perform the test, but he was ultimately unable to perform the test to match a diagnosis. Dr. Margaitis then reviewed Bell's assessment and provided feedback. The feedback included Dr. Margaitis's re-administration of the sacral spring test on Murphy. After completing the test, Dr. Margaitis asked Murphy if she felt any pain in her lower back. Murphy responded, "No." Following the sacral spring test, Dr. Margaitis diagnosed Murphy with "left-on-left sacral torsion."2 He then asked Bell to demonstrate the technique to treat left-on-left sacral torsion. Bell palpated Murphy's lower back, and the students concluded their practical exam.
¶3. After the practical exam, Murphy went home to study for the written portion of the CSA. After studying for an hour or two, Murphy started experiencing pain and swelling in her sacrum region. She treated the pain with ice packs and anti-inflammatory medication.
¶4. Two weeks after the CSA, Murphy approached Dr. Tanisha Hayes, another professor at William Carey, to report that she suffered from chronic back pain as result of the sacral spring test Dr. Margaitis had performed. Two weeks after approaching Dr. Hayes, Murphy also informed Dr. Margaitis of her back pain. In response, Dr. Margaitis offered to treat Murphy's pain on May 7, 2013.3 After receiving Dr. Margaitis's treatment, Murphy sought additional treatment from Dr. Jones, the Chair of the Osteopathic Principals and Practice Department at William Carey. Dr. Jones treated Murphy on two occasions.4
¶5. Following those treatments, Murphy's lower back pain persisted. On May 12, 2013, Murphy visited the emergency room at the Wesley Medical Center in Hattiesburg, Mississippi, in an attempt to determine the cause of her pain. The attending nurse assessed Murphy's condition, and Murphy was given an x-ray. Her x-ray results were "clean." Following the triage, the nurse concluded that Murphy suffered from "lumbago lower back strain and pain" and prescribed Murphy a muscle relaxer. The nurse also instructed Murphy to see a general practitioner if the pain did not subside. A few days later, Murphy visited Dr. Gary Carr, a general practitioner. Dr. Carr performed a nerve test to ensure Murphy could feel sensation. He also prescribed Murphy additional medication and instructed Murphy to start physical therapy if she felt no improvements. In June, physical therapists treated Murphy for sacroiliac joint pain. A few weeks after, Murphy moved back to Tennessee for summer break. In Tennessee, Murphy scheduled an appointment at Vanderbilt University, where she was referred to additional physical therapy. In the months that followed, Murphy visited various doctors and received an assortment of treatments and tests. The treatments were for sacroiliac joint pain.
¶6. On July 10, 2015, Murphy filed a complaint in the Forrest County Circuit Court against William Carey, Dean Turner, and Dr. Margaitis. In the suit, Murphy claimed that (1) Dr. Margaitis "violated his duty of care when he negligently injured [Murphy], who was under his medical care"; (2) William Carey breached an implied contract; and (3) William Carey and Dean Turner committed negligence by failing to adequately train and supervise Dr. Margaitis. William Carey and Dean Turner filed separate answers and affirmative defenses on August 13, 2015. Dr. Margaitis filed his separate answer and affirmative defenses on August 21, 2015.
¶7. On November 7, 2016, Murphy designated Dr. Gary Cole, a family medicine doctor, and Dr. Gerald Hesch, a physical therapist, as expert witnesses. Dr. Cole was designated to testify in regard to his treatment of Murphy, as well as the "actual and factual and proximate cause" of her injuries, and damages. Dr. Hesch was designated to testify to the same. On December 7, 2016, the Appellees designated Dr. Walter Ehrenfeuchter as an expert in the field of osteopathic manipulative medicine and Dr. John Kauffman as an expert in higher education administration.
¶8. On March 17, 2017, the Appellees moved for summary judgment under Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 56, attaching eleven exhibits to the motion.5 The Appellees argued that Murphy had failed to set forth genuine issues of material fact or provide expert testimony regarding Dr. Margaitis's performance of the sacral spring test; no contract existed between Murphy and William Carey; Murphy failed to provide genuine issues of material fact showing that Dr. Margaitis was negligently hired, trained, or supervised; and Murphy did not provide expert testimony regarding Murphy's financial losses. Murphy responded in opposition on April 12, 2017, incorporating the Appellees’ exhibits and attaching affidavits from her designated expert witnesses.6 In her response, Murphy replied that no expert testimony had been offered regarding causation because Murphy's experts had not been deposed by the defendants (Murphy had attached affidavits to the response.); an implied contract existed between Murphy and William Carey; Dr. Margaitis was not adequately trained or supervised; and she was not required to designate an expert to testify about her financial losses.
¶9. On December 6, 2017, the Appellees filed a supplemental motion for summary judgment, claiming that Murphy's claims were time-barred under Mississippi Code Annotated section 15-1-36 (Rev. 2012). On the same day, Murphy moved for an adverse-inference instruction due to spoliation because the Appellees failed to preserve and search for electronically stored information. Murphy's motion also requested sanctions for the alleged spoliation of evidence. The Appellees filed a consolidated response opposing both the adverse-inference instruction and the claim for sanctions.
¶10. The circuit court held a motions hearing on December 15, 2017. After the hearing, the circuit court executed an order granting the Appellees’ March 17 motion for summary judgment. In the order, the court held that there was insufficient expert testimony to establish a prima facie case for negligence or breach of contract and that Murphy failed to "provide responsive evidence" that Dr. Margaitis was negligently trained or supervised. The court also denied the Appellees’ supplemental motion for summary judgment, Murphy's motion for the adverse-inference instruction, and Murphy's claim for sanctions.
¶11. It is from the circuit court's summary judgment order that Murphy now appeals. On appeal, Murphy raises the following issues: (1) whether the circuit court erred by granting summary judgment on Murphy's negligence claim; (2) whether the circuit court erred by granting summary judgment on Murphy's breach-of-contract claim; (3) whether the circuit court erred by granting summary judgment on Murphy's negligent hiring, training, and/or supervision claim; and (4) whether the circuit court erred by denying Murphy's motion for the adverse-inference instruction.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶12. We review a trial court's decision granting or denying summary judgment de novo. Robinson v. Holmes County , 284 So. 3d 730, 732 (¶7) (Miss. 2019). "Summary judgment is proper only when no genuine issue of material fact exists, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Owen v. Pringle , 621 So. 2d 668, 670 (Miss. 1993). To determine whether there is a genuine issue of material fact, we will review "all admissions, answers to interrogatories, depositions, affidavits, any other evidence, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the non-movant[,]" in this case, Murphy. Elliott v. AmeriGas Propane L.P. , 249 So. 3d 389, 395 (¶22) (Miss. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. Gammage
...incompetence or unfitness before the employer will become liable for negligent hiring or retention of an employee who injures a third party.” Id. (citations omitted). The Plaintiffs have adequately such a claim sufficient to preclude dismissal at this stage of the proceedings. [25] CMS also......
- Carr v. Miss. Lottery Corp.
- Carr v. Miss. Lottery Corp.
- Carr v. Miss. Lottery Corp.