Fipps v. Greenwood Leflore Hospital
| Docket Number: | 2016-CA-01141-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-06-2018 Opinion Author: Lee, C.J. Holding: Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Medical malpractice - Expert testimony - M.R.E. 702 - Opinion on informed consent - Status of medical license Judge(s) Concurring: Griffis, P.J., Barnes, Carlton, Fair, Wilson, Greenlee, Westbrooks and Tindell, JJ. Concur in Part, Concur in Result 1: Irving, P.J., without separate written opinion Procedural History: Dismissal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - MEDICAL MALPRACTICE |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Otis Fipps |
CARLOS EUGENE MOORE |
|
|
| Appellee: | Greenwood Leflore Hospital | TOMMIE GREGORY WILLIAMS JR., TOMMIE G. WILLIAMS, HARRIS FREDERICK POWERS III | ||
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Medical malpractice - Expert testimony - M.R.E. 702 - Opinion on informed consent - Status of medical license |
| Summary of the Facts: | Otis Fipps underwent an esophagogastroduodenoscopy procedure performed by Dr. Thomas Calvit at Greenwood Leflore Hospital. During the EGD, Dr. Calvit performed an esophageal dilatation to treat Fipps’s dysphagia. Fipps claims this procedure caused a perforation of his esophagus, leading to further medical complications including a neck abscess and two additional surgeries. Fipps filed suit against Greenwood Leflore Hospital, Dr. Thomas Calvit in his individual capacity and Greenwood Gastroenterology Center. Both Dr. Calvit and Greenwood Gastroenterology Center were ultimately dismissed from the lawsuit. Fipps designated Dr. Myron Stokes, a general surgeon, as an expert “in surgery regarding upper and lower gastrointestinal issues.” Based upon Dr. Stokes’s deposition, the Hospital filed three pretrial motions. The first asked the trial court to exclude the portions of Dr. Stokes’s testimony regarding informed consent. The second asked the trial court to exclude any potential testimony by Dr. Stokes that his medical license was current or that he had never been disciplined by any medical licensure board. The third asked the trial court to exclude Dr. Stokes’s expert opinion because he lacked the appropriate qualifications to testify. The court granted all three motions which resulted in the exclusion of Dr. Stokes’s deposition. After granting the Hospital’s motions, the trial court asked Fipps to call his first witness. Since Fipps had no witness other than Dr. Stokes, Fipps rested. The Hospital then requested a dismissal pursuant to M.R.C.P. 41(b). The court granted the motion, and Fipps appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Expert testimony Fipps argues that Dr. Stokes was qualified to offer his opinion regarding the standard of care applicable to a gastroenterologist. According to M.R.E. 702, a witness may testify as an expert if the witness is “qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education,” and “if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.” The fact that Dr. Stokes, a board-certified general surgeon, is not certified as a gastroenterologist is not dispositive. There is no requirement that an expert in a medical-malpractice case be a specialist in the same area as the doctor about whom the expert is testifying in regard to the standard of care. However, satisfactory familiarity with the specialty of the defendant doctor is required in order for an expert to testify as to the standard of care owed to the plaintiff patient. Here, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding Dr. Stokes was not qualified to offer his expert opinion. Although Dr. Stokes had some familiarity with the procedure, he did not indicate sufficient familiarity with the standard of care to which a gastroenterologist is held. As the trial court found, Dr. Stokes “was never asked and did not testify that he was familiar with the standard of care in the medical speciality of gastroenterology as to when and whether the dilatation procedures should be performed.” Issue 2: Informed consent Fipps argues that Dr. Stokes’s opinion regarding informed consent was properly disclosed. During his deposition, Dr. Stokes stated that he had not been asked to give his opinion on informed consent. However, on cross-examination, Fipps questioned Dr. Stokes about informed consent. Since the trial court’s decision to exclude Dr. Stokes’s testimony is affirmed, there is no reason to address this issue. Issue 3: Status of medical license Fipps argues that the trial court erred in granting the Hospital’s motion in limine to prevent Dr. Stokes from testifying that he was a licensed physician. Since the trial court’s decision to exclude Dr. Stokes’s testimony is affirmed, there is no reason to address this issue. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
