Tillman By Tillman v. Elrod
| Decision Date | 21 March 1995 |
| Docket Number | 19504,Nos. 19659,s. 19659 |
| Citation | 897 S.W.2d 116 |
| Parties | Brittany L. TILLMAN, by Next Friend, Elaine TILLMAN, and Elaine Tillman and Charles Tillman, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Julia A. ELROD, M.D., Defendant-Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
William H. Pickett, Kansas City, for appellants.
Bradley J. Fisher and McDonald, William R. Robb, Woolsey, Fisher, Whiteaker & McDonald, Springfield, for respondent.
This action was initiated against an obstetrician, his professional corporation, a hospital nurse, the hospital where she worked, and Defendant-Respondent. All original defendants except Defendant Elrod settled with the Plaintiffs and were dismissed from the matter. Following the settlements and those dismissals, on March 7, 1994, the trial court granted Defendant Elrod's motion for summary judgment.
On March 18, 1994, Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of that ruling, and on April 18, 1994, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the grant of summary judgment. On June 27, 1994, Plaintiffs filed an additional notice of appeal after the trial court's denial of the motion to reconsider by no ruling being made within the expiration of ninety days. See Rule 78.06. 1
On appeal from summary judgment, an appellate court reviews the record in the light most favorable to the party against whom the judgment was entered. ITT Commercial Finance Corp. v. Mid-Am. Marine, 854 S.W.2d 371, 376 (Mo. banc 1993). However, here there is little, if any, dispute as to the relevant facts regarding the summary judgment.
Due to circumstances occurring immediately prior to and after her birth, Plaintiff Brittany Tillman suffers from cerebral palsy. The record indicates that the obstetrician and nurse who attended the delivery were primarily responsible for that condition. Defendant Elrod, a medical doctor described as a "neonatologist", cared for Plaintiff Brittany Tillman in the neo-natal intensive-care unit following her birth. Plaintiffs contend that her negligence increased the severity of Brittany Tillman's condition.
Defendant Elrod maintains that the testimony of Dr. Crawford, one of the medical experts secured by Plaintiffs, and the only one who found any fault with Defendant Elrod's care, was insufficient to show any fault on Defendant Elrod's part. Crawford conceded that Elrod was not the primary cause of Brittany Tillman's condition, and Crawford could not state what percentage of Brittany Tillman's injuries was attributed to Defendant Elrod.
In order to establish a prima facie case of medical malpractice, Plaintiffs must show: (1) an act or omission of Defendant Elrod which failed to meet the requisite medical standard of care, (2) that act or omission was negligence, and (3) a causal connection between that act or omission and the cerebral palsy. Langton v. Brown, 591 S.W.2d 84, 88 (Mo.App.1979). See also Yoos v. Jewish Hospital of St. Louis, 645 S.W.2d 177, 183 (Mo.App.1982).
Taken in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs, Crawford's testimony appears to establish negligent conduct of Elrod and a connection between that conduct and Brittany Tillman's condition. Crawford listed six acts or omissions which allegedly breached the standard of care and detail what the appropriate medical care would have been. Dr. Crawford did not articulate any percentage or specify how Elrod worsened the cerebral palsy, saying that Elrod's conduct "contributed but not significantly" to Brittany Tillman's condition, and that contribution was "minor".
The question that appears to this court is whether Elrod may be liable when (1) her contribution to the claimed injury was only "minor", and (2) no specific part of the injury can be attributed directly to Defendant Elrod. As to the first part of the question, there may have been a submissible case. The "but for" test for causation in Missouri applies in all cases except those involving two independent torts, either of which is sufficient in and of itself to cause the injury. Callahan v. Cardinal Glennon Hospital, 863 S.W.2d 852, 862-63 (Mo. banc 1993). Because the claimed fault by Defendant Elrod and the other health care providers was not independent and sufficient in themselves to cause the entire injury, that is, the degree of cerebral palsy from which she now suffers, the "but for" test applies. The "defendant's conduct is a cause of the event if the event would not have occurred 'but for' that conduct." Callahan, 863 S.W.2d at 860-61. According to Dr. Crawford, were it not for Elrod's negligence the severity of Brittany's cerebral palsy would be less.
Where concurrent or successive negligence combined together results in injury, the injured party may recover damages of either or both, and neither can use the defense that the prior occurrence or negligence of the other contributed to the injury. Schiles v. Schaefer, 710 S.W.2d 254, 267 (Mo.App.1986). See also Estate of Treece v. Stillie, 868 S.W.2d 111, 114 (Mo.App.1993) ().
Defendant Elrod is a health care provider as defined in § 538.205(4) RSMo 1986. Section 538.230.1 RSMo 1986 provides that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wright v. W. Kent Barr
...experience to understand and judge it." Super v. White, 18 S.W.3d 511, 516 (Mo. App. W.D. 2000) (quoting Tillman by Tillman v. Elrod, 897 S.W.2d 116, 118 (Mo. App. S.D. 1995)). When the plaintiff relies on expert testimony to provide evidence as to causation when there are two or more possi......
-
Robinson v. Missouri State Highway and Transportation
...[party] can use the defense that the prior occurrence or negligence of the other contributed to the injury." Tillman by Tillman v. Elrod, 897 S.W.2d 116, 118 (Mo. App. 1995). In our view, any negligence, as alleged by the respondents, on the part of the Highway Commission, Mr. Robinson, and......
-
Smith v. Tenet Healthsystem Sl, Inc.
...the defendants would be liable even if their negligence was but one of multiple causes of Smith's amputation. See Tillman v. Elrod, 897 S.W.2d 116, 118 (Mo.Ct.App. 1995) ("Where concurrent or successive negligence combined together results in injury, the injured party may recover damages of......
-
Coon v. Dryden and Fotopoulos
...so apparent as to require only common knowledge and experience to understand and judge it." Id. (quoting Tillman by Tillman v. Elrod, 897 S.W.2d 116, 118 (Mo. App. S.D. 1995)). When the plaintiff relies on expert testimony to provide evidence as to causation when there are two or more possi......