I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 4 - CA- 0 2 2 0 8 - S CT DELT A REGIONAL M

EDICAL CENTER
v. M ICHA EL VENTON, I

NDI VI DUA L L Y A ND ON BEH ALF O F ALL TH OSE EN TI TLED TO RE CO VER F OR T

HE WRONGF UL DE

AT H OF HAT T I E V EN TON
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 09/ 16/ 2004 T RI AL J UDGE : HON. M AR GAR E T CA RE Y- M c CR AY CO UR T F RO M W HI CH AP P E AL E D: ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLAN T: W ASHI NGTON COU NTY CI RCUI T COURT RO BE RT R. S T E P HE NS ON L . CA RL HAGW OOD A T T O R N E Y S F O R A P P E L L E E : MI C H A E L M. WI L L I A MS TY V ESTE R G O SS NATURE OF THE CAS E: CI VI L - M EDI CAL M ALP RACTI CE D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 09/ 13/ 2007 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:
B E F O R E SM I T H , C . J. , D I C K I N SO N A N D L A M A R , JJ. LAM AR, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶ 1
. H att i e V ent on w as admi t t ed t o the I nt ens i ve C ar e U ni tatD el t a R egi onal M edi cal C ent er( D R M C ) on J anuary 7, 1999, af t erseve r al f

ai nt i ng epi s odes
. A tthe t i m e, V ent on w as
s eventy- ei ghtyear s ol d and s uf f er ed f r om m ul t i pl e hea l th pr obl ems s uch as anemi a, gas tr oi nt es t i nal bl eedi ng, hematur i a, and atr i al f i br i l l at i on. A ppr oxi m at el y t en days af t er
arr i ving atD el t a R egional , V enton dev el op ed a dec ub i tus ulcer(com m on l y ref err ed to as a “bed sore”) on her coccy x thatult i m at el y ex pan ded i nto a w ou nd m easuri ng si x b y ten i nch es.D uri ng the pendenc y of thi s appea l , C har l es V ent on pas s ed aw ay, and M i chae l 1 V ent on w as s ubs t i tut ed as a party. 2 O n February 17, 1999, V ent on w as tr ans f err ed f r om D R M C t o H eal t hS ou t h, a Loui s i ana
r ehabi l i t at i on f

aci l i ty, w her e the beds or e began t o he al
. She di ed on M ar ch 30, 1999. T he death cert i f

i cat e attr i but ed the ca us e of de ath t o r es pi r at ory f

ai l ur e, how ever , no aut ops y w as per f or m ed. P RO CE E DI NG S ¶ 2
. Ch a r l e s Ve n t o n , Ha t t i e Ve n t o n ’ s s o n , b r o u g h ta wr o n g f u l d e a th c l a i m a g a i n s tDRM C 1 and t en unnamed s t af

f mem ber s . B eca us e D R M C w as a comm uni ty hos pi t al exi s t i ng under t he l aw s of

the St at e of

M i s s i s s i ppi , thi s cas e pr ocee ded as a benc h tr i al pur s uantt o t he M i s s i s s i ppi Tor tCl ai m s A ct( M T C A ) M i s s i s s i ppi Code A nnot at ed s ect i on 11- 46- 1 ets eq. ( R ev. 2002)
. U pon compl et i on of the tr i al pr ocee di ngs , the tr i al j udge found “by a pr eponder ance of

the evi dence thatnegl i gentact s and/ orom i s s i ons of the nur s i ng s t af

f and
o th e r e m p lo y e e s a n d p e rso n n e l of D R M C in fa ili n g to a d e q u a tely tur n a n d re p o sitio n H a tti e V e nt on , a nd i n f

a i l i ng t o pr ov i de p r op e rh yd r a t i on , wer e p r ox i mat e c on tr i bu t i ng c a us e s of th e s k in b re a k d o w n , d e c u b itu s u lce r d e v e lo p m e n t, reg re ss io n a n d th e d e a th o f H a tti e V e n to n .” ¶3. A s pr ovi ded i n M i s s i s s i ppi C od e A nn otat ed s ect i on 85- 5- 7 ( R ev. 1999) , f aul t w as appor t i oned betw een the phys i ci ans , w ho w er e notpart i es t o the l aw s ui t , and D R M C
. E ach
w a s fo u n d to b e fifty p e rc e n t at fa u lt. T h e c o u rt a w a rd e d V e n to n ’s e sta te $ 1 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 in damage s , w i th $ 50 0, 00 0 a s s e s s e d a ga i ns tD RM C. Thi s a mountw a s r e du c e d t o $ 25 0, 000M i ssi ssi pp i C od e A nn otat ed sect i on 11 -46-15(1)( b) ( R ev. 20 02 ) s t at es: 2 I n any cl ai m or s ui tfordam ages agai ns ta governm ent al ent i ty ori t s empl oyee br oughtunder the pr ovi s i ons of thi s chapt er , the l i abi l i ty s hal l notexce ed the f ol l ow i ng f

oral l cl ai m s ar i s i ng o u t of a sing le oc cu rren ce for a ll d am ag es p erm itted u n d er this ch ap ter:

. . . ( b) f orc l ai m s orc aus es of

a ct i on a r i s i ng f

r om act s orom i s s i ons occurr i ng on or after Ju ly 1 , 1 9 9 7 , b u t befo re Ju ly 1 , 2 0 0 1 , the su m of T w o H u n d red F if ty T h o u san d D o ll ars ($2 5 0 , 0 0 0
. 0 0 ). M iss iss ip p i C o d e A n n o tate d se c tio n 1 1 -4 6 -1 7 (4 ) (R e v . 2 0 0 2 ) p ro v id e s th a t: 3 A n y g o v e rn m e n ta l e n tity o f th e sta te m a y p u rc h a se liab ili ty in su ra n c e to c o v e r c laim s in excess of the am ou nts provided for i n S ect i on 11 -46-15 an d m ay be sued by any on e i n ex cess of the amount s pr ovi ded f ori n Sec t i on 11- 46- 15 t o the ext entof s uch i nsurance carr i ed; pr ovi ded, how ever , thatthe i m m uni ty f r om s ui ta bove the amount s pr ovi ded f ori n Sect i on 1 1 -4 6 -1 5 s h a ll b e w a iv e d o n ly to th e e x te n t o f s u c h e x c e s s lia b ility in s u ra n c e c a rr ie d
. 3 underthe M T C A , butw as agai n i ncr eas ed t o $500, 000, the amountof D R M C ’ s i ns ur ance 2
c o v e ra g e . D R M C co n ten d s th a t th e re w a s n o p ro o f o f n e g lig e n c e o n the p a rt o f i ts

3 empl oyees , no l i nk betw een the degr ee of care an d the deve l opm entof beds or es , and no pr oxi m at e ca us at i on betw een the ul cerand V ent on’ s death. DI S CU S S I ON I . St andard of R evi ew ¶4. T he s t andar d by w hi ch an a ppel l at e courtre vi ew s fa ctual det erm i nat i ons m ade by a tr ia l ju d g e sit tin g w ith o u t a ju ry is th e s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e s ta n d a rd
. B r ew erC onstr. C o. v. D av id Bre wer, I

nc. , 940 So. 2d 921, 925 ( M i s s . 2006)
. U nders uch a s t andar d, a l ow er
c o u rt’s f in d in g s w ill n o t b e re v e rse d o n a p p e a l w h e re th e y a re su p p o rte d b y su b sta n tial,
cr edi bl e, and r eas onabl e evi dence
. D o n a ld so n v. Co v in g to n Co u n ty , 8 46 So
. 2 d 21 9, 222 ( M i s s . 2003). D R M C ar gues thatw e s houl d departf r om thi s def

er ent i al s t andar d and i ns t ead conducta de novo r evi ew b ecause seve r al of V ent on’ s s ubm i t t ed f

i ndi ngs of

f actand4

c o n c l u s i o n s o f

l a w we r e a d o p t e d v e rb a t i m b y th e tr i a l c o u r t . I n r e v i e wi n g th e r e c o r d , we not e thatf

i ndi ngs of

f acta nd c oncl us i ons of

l aw w er e s ubm i t t ed by both pa r t i es a nd thatt he tr i a l c o u r t ’ s o p i n i o n c o n t a i n e d s o me f i n d i n g s f r o m e a c h p a r ty i n a d d i t i o n t o th e Co u r t ’ s o wn fi nd i ng s. ¶ 5 . T h e a u th o ri ty c ite d b y D R M C in su p p o rt o f its p ro p o s itio n , Mis s is s i pp iD e pa r t m e nt of Trans por tati on v. Joh nson , ad d resse d the s itu ati o n w h ere fi n d ing s o f fact of o n ly one par t y ar e adopt ed in to to . Johnson , 8 7 3 S o . 2 d 1 0 8 , 1 1 1 (M iss . 2 0 0 4 ) (em p h asis ad d ed ). T h e re , the o p in io n n o ted th a t:

. . . pr opos ed f

i ndi ngs of

f acta nd c oncl us i ons of

l aw w hi ch J ohns on’ s l aw yer m ai l ed t o the j udge ar e i dent i cal t o the f i ndi ngs of

f acta nd c oncl us i ons of

l aw w hi ch the j udge s i gned on N ovember12, 2002. T her e can be no doubtthatthe tr i a l j u d g e a d o p t e d a n d e n t e r e d v e rb a t i m Johns on’s propos ed f i ndi ngs of

f act a n dc o n c lu s io n s o

f la w . T he onl y di f

f er ence i s thati n the ver s i on s i gned by th e tr ia l ju d g e , h e “ fi lle d in th e b la n k s ” fo r t h e p e rc e n ta g e s o f f a u lt . . .
. I d . (em p h asis ad d ed ). ¶6. T he s i tuat i on above, w here t he t ri al judge ado pt ed onl y one party’ s f i ndi ngs and
c o n c lu s io n s , is c le a rl y d is tin g u is h a b le fr o m th e c a s e a t b a r. Johnson does notm andat e de
novo r evi ew w her e a c our tor gani zes f act s f r om both s i des al ong w i th i t s ow n addi t i onal fi nd i ng s. ¶7. I ti s no s ecr etthatc our t s i n M i s s i s s i ppi deal w i th heavy c as el oads and, unf or tunat el y,
m any ar e under s t af

f ed. T he pr act i ce of

us i ng both part i es ’ s ubm i t t ed f i nd i ng s of f

actand
c o n c lu sio n s o f la w b e n e fits ju d icia l ec o n o m y . T h is C o u rt w ill n o t h in d e r p ra c tice s th a t aid
o u rc o u r ts y s t e m wh e n s u c h a c t i o n s a r e f a i ra n d j u s t . W e wi l l t h e r e f o r e de v i a t e f

r o m aSpeci f i cal l y as t o w ound car e, D r . V er dery t es t i f i ed thati tw as a br eac h of car e f or 4 V en ton ’s do ctors to p resc ri b e p ero x ide an d iod ine tr ea tm en ts for V en ton ’s d ec u b itu s u lcer. S tat ing th at th e p resc ri b ed trea tm en ts ac tually h ind er the g row th o f ne w ce ll s, D r. V erd ery opi ned thatus i ng a moi s ts al i ne gauz e dr es s i ng w as the appl i cabl e st and ard of c ar e i n t he m ed ical co m m u n ity fo r trea ti n g b ed so res. T h e tri al co u rtag ree d w ith D r. V erd ery ’s u n co n tr ad ict ed test im o n y o n this p o int an d a ttri b u ted fau ltto V en ton ’s p h y sici an s, w h o w ere 5 def er ent i al s t andar d onl y w hen, a s pr ece dence s ugges t s , onl y on e pa rt y’s fi n d ing s o f fact are adopt ed in to to . See id. A s thi s r ecord ref l ect s a col l abor at i on of both part i es ’ f

act s and concl us i ons , al ong w i th ori gi nal det erm i nat i ons f r om the tr i al courti t s el f , the s ubs t ant i al evi dence s t andar d w i l l be appl i ed. I I . Suff i ci ency of

t he E vi dence ¶8. T o es t abl i s h a pr i m a f aci e cas e of m edi cal negl i gence , a pl ai nt i f f m us t pr ove that( 1) the def endanthad a duty t o conf or m t o a s peci f

i c s t andar d of

conductf

or t he prot ect i on of other s agai ns tan unr eas onabl e r i s k of i nj ury; ( 2) the def

endantf ai l ed t o conf

or m t o t hat req u ir ed stan d ard ; ( 3 ) th e d efe n d an t’ s bre ac h of du ty w as a p rox im ate c au se o f th e p lai n ti ff’ s in ju ry , a n d ; ( 4 ) th e p la in tif f w a s in ju re d a s a re s u lt. B u r n h a m v. T a b b , 508 So. 2d 1072, 1074 ( M i s s . 19 87 )
. D RM C con t e nd s tha tV e nt on f a i l e d t o p r ov e the e l e ment s of br e a c h a nd
c a u sa tio n , thu s it w a s e n tit led to a d ire c ted v e rd ict. A . B reac h ¶9. T he pl ai nt i f

f pr es ent ed tw o expert s . T he f i r s t w as D r . R oy V er dery, acc ept ed by t he
courtas an expe r ti n the ar eas of i nt ernal medi ci ne and ge r i atr i cs . H e opi ned thatD R M C and V ent on’ s doct or s br eac hed the s t andar d of car e i n thei rtr eatm entof V ent on i n the ar eas of nutr i t i on, m edi cat i on, turni ng, document at i on and w ound car e. 4notpart i es t o thi s s ui t , f orany br eac h as t o w ound car e.

6 ¶1 0
. N o tin g that n u tr it ion is e ssen ti al in the m ainten an ce o f sk in integ ri ty, e sp ec ially in ol derpeopl e w ho ar e i m m ob i l e, D r . V er dery t es t i f i ed thatV ent on’ s m al nutr i t i on w hi l e at D R M C co n tr ibu ted to the d ev elop m en t of h er d ec u b itu s u lcer. In il lustrat ing h is po int, D r. V er dery poi nt ed t o the f actthatV ent on l os tthi r ty pounds i n the mont h thats he w as at D R M C . T h is e x tre m e w e ig h t lo ss le d to a lo ss o f p ro tein w h ich , as D r. V e rd e ry tes tified , is i nt e gr a l i n mai nt a i ni ng the s ki n’ s i nt e gr i ty. A l tho ug h the r e wer e t i mes when i tw as document ed thatV ent on r ef us ed t o e at , D r . V er dery t es t i f i ed thatnur s es s houl d have att empt ed t o f

i nd m or e attr act i ve f

ood al t ernat i ves , s uch as i ce c r eam. H e al s o not ed that
cert ai n a nt i depr es s ant s doubl e as a ppet i t e s t i m ul ant s , a nd s ai d thatthe use of s uch
m ed icati o n s h as b ee n w ith in th e stan d ard o f ca re in the g eriatr ic co m m u n ity for m an y y ea rs
a l th o u g h DRM C d i d n o ta t t e mp tt o u s e th e m. ¶11. D r . V er dery al s o t es t i f i ed t o the s t andar d of car e i n pr event i ng decubi tus ulcer s by tu rn in g a p a tien t. H e n o ted th a t in o rd e r to p re v e n t a n u lce r f ro m fo rm in g , a p a tien t sh o u ld b e turn ed ev ery tw o ho u rs. Im p o rt an tl y , D r. V erd ery p o inted o u t th at tu rnin g a p ati en t eve ry tw o hour s i s nota “tr eatm ent ” f orpeopl e w ho ha ve al r eady f or m ed decubi tus ul cer s , butt hat i ti s nece s s ary t o pr eventan ul cerf r om f or m i ng i n the f

i r s tpl ace . H e not ed thatonce a n ul cer h a s fo rm e d , tr e a tm e n t m u s t b e “ m u c h m o re a g g re s s iv e .” ¶1 2
. L o u ree n D o w n es, a reg istere d n u rse , test if ied a s a n u rsi n g ex p ert. R eit era ti n g D r. V er dery’ s t es t i m ony, D ow nes t es t i f i ed thatthe s t andar d of c ar e i n pr event i on o f bedsor esO ne suc h m edi cal re cor d re veal ed t hatV ent on re m ai ned i n one posi t i on fors i xt een 5 h o u rs on Jan u ary 2 0 , 1 9 9 9 , after w h ich h er d ec u b itu s u lcer reg resse d to S tage III . 7 m andat es turni ng a pat i entatl eas tevery t w o hour s . She poi nt ed t o m edi cal r ecor ds w hi ch
s how ed thateven a f

t erthe pr es s ur e s or e w as di agnos ed, V ent on w as notturned f orper i ods rangi ng fr om three t o u pw ard of ei gh tho urs. 5 ¶13. I n addi t i on to t he st and ard of care for turni ng a pat i ent , D ow nes t es t i f i ed t o the stan d ard o f ca re in k ee p ing a p ati en t p rop erly h y d rated
. S h e testi fi ed th at th e p rop er stan d ard f orhydra t i on re qui r es a pat i entt o re cei ve 2, 000 t o 3, 000 ccs of f l ui d i n a tw enty- f

our - hour per i od. Pr operhydr at i on, acc or di ng to D ow nes ’ s t es t i m ony, i ns ur es thatthe s ki n r ece i ves nutr i ent s thr ough the ci r cul at ory sys t em. W i thoutpr operhydr at i on, the s ki n does notr ece i ve thes e es s ent i al nut r i ent s , and t he r i s k of br eakdow n i s i ncr eas ed. D ow nes poi nt ed t o m edi cal
r eco r ds whi c h r e ve a l e d tha tVent on ’ s f l ui d i nt a ke a s c on tr ol l e d by the s t a f f o f D R M C w as f arl es s than w hatw as pr es cr i bed by herdoct or s , and gr os s l y i nad equat e t o m eether hy drat i on need s. ¶14. D R M C as ks thi s C our t t o di s r egar d the pl ai nt i f f’ s expert t es t i m ony, ar gui ng thatt he bul k of D r . V er dery’ s and D ow nes ’ s concl us i ons w er e unsupport ed and c ontr adi ct ory t o the
re c o rd s. W h ile D r. V e rd e ry d id a d m it th a t o n ly a p h y sic ian c o u ld h a v e o rd e re d th e p a in
m edi cat i on, nutr i t i onal s uppl ement s , and s peci al pr essur e-r el i eving be d thatV enton requi r ed, th e trial c o u rt a llo c a ted fa u lt in th e se p a rticu lar a re a s to th e p h y sic ian s, n o t D R M C , in its f i ndi ngs of f

act . T he t r i al cour t ’ s opi ni on w as thatD R M C ’ s l i abi l i ty w as ent i r el y bas ed upon the f ai l ur e t o turn V ent on and pr ovi de herw i th pr operhydr at i on.8

¶15. A s not ed above , thi s C our tw i l l notdi s turb the f i ndi ngs of

a tr i al j udge s i t t i ng w i thout a j ury unl es s s uch f

i ndi ngs w er e mani f

es t l y w r ong, cl ear l y er r oneous , or a n err oneous l egal
s ta n d a rd w a s a p p lie d
. Chantey Music Pu bl . , I nc. v. Malaco, I

nc. , 915 So. 2d 1052, 1055 ( M i s s . 2005)
. Base d upon the evi dence di s cus s ed above, w e f i nd thatthe el ementof

br eac h
w a s s u ffic ien tly e sta b lish e d . T h is iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit. B . C ausat i on ¶16. D R M C ’ s nextcont ent i on of err ori s t hatcaus at i on w as notpr oper l y es t abl i s hed by the pl ai nt i f f attr i al
. A s t o the deve l opm entof t he press ure s or e, D r . V er dery t es t i f i ed thatt he
wo u n d wa s a r e s u l to f

l a c k of p r o p e rh y d r a t i o n , n u tr i t i o n , a n d tu rn i n g o n b e h a l f o f DRM C
em ployees. ¶17. A s t o t he cause of death, D r . V er dery as s ert ed that V ent on di ed of s eps i s f r om t he d e c u b itu s u lce r. B a sin g h is o p in io n o n th e m e d ic a l r e c o rd s, h e p o in ted to b lo o d tes ts per f or m ed atH eal thSout h r ehabi l i t at i on f aci l i ty thatr evea l ed bact er oi des f r agil is b a c ter ia i n V ent on’ s bl oods tr eam. D r . V er dery st at ed t hatt hi s bact er i a i s “very uncomm onl y f ound in p e o p le u n les s th e y h a v e a n a n a e ro b ic in fe c tio n , a n in fe c tio n w h ich is v e ry d iffic u lt fo r a ir to g e t to , s u c h a s a d e c u b itu s u lc e r o r a n in fe c te d b o n e a t th e b o tto m o f a d e c u b itu s u lc e r.” ¶18. A f

t era br i ef

expl anat i on aboutt he l ocat i on of the beds or e and thatl ocat i on’ s ef f ect
o n tr e a t me n t , Dr . Ve r d e r y wa s a s k e d t o c o rr e l a t e th e b a c t e r i a a n d Ve n t o n ’ s d e a th
. He test if ied th at: “this co n stan t i n fec tio n in this l arg e d ec u b itu s u lcer ca u ses in fl am m atory
r e a c t i o n i n th e r e s to f

th e b o d y . Th e l i v e rb e g i n s t o s t o p f u n c t i o n i n g , th e h e a r td o e s n ’ tp u mp
very w el l , the l ungs don’tm ai nt ai n t hei ri nt egr i ty and fi l l up w i th fl ui ds
. . . [ a] f t erthe other9

or gans f ai l , death ens ues . ” I tw as D r . V er dery’ s opi ni on, t o a r eas onabl e degr ee of m edi cal pr obabi l i ty, thatthe beds or e ca us ed V ent on’ s death. ¶19. T he def

ens e put on D r . C al vi n R amsey as i t s m edi cal expert . D r . R amsey di s agr eed
w i th D r . V er dery’ s a s s es s m enta nd s t at ed thati n hi s opi ni on “M r s . V ent on di ed, acc or di ng t o the dea th cert i f

i cat e, of a r es pi r at ory pr obl em. O n the dea th cert i f i cat e ther e i s no m ent i on
m a d e o f a n y th in g a b o u t in fe c tio n , o r a d e c u b itu s m o re s p e c if ic a lly .” ¶ 2 0
. W h e n th e re is a c o n flict o f ex p e rt m e d ica l o p in io n , this C o u rt h a s h e ld it t o b e w ith in th e p ro v in c e o f th e fa c t- fi n d e r to d e te rm in e th e c a u s e o f d e a th
. See Co w a n v. S ta te , 399 So. 2 d 1 3 4 6 , 1 3 4 8 (M iss . 1 9 8 1 ); T h o m p so n v. S ta te , 7 0 S o . 2 d 3 4 1 (M iss . 1 9 5 4 ). R a re ly is ther e a c as e i n w hi ch al l exper t s agr ee on al l i s s ues . Subst ant i al and cr edi bl e evi dence w as pr es ent ed on both s i des ; i tw as the tr i al j udge’ s r es pons i bi l i ty t o det erm i ne w hi ch expe r tw as th e m o st re liab le. W e fin d th is iss u e to b e w ith o u t m e rit. I I I . D am ages ¶21. D R M C as ks thi s Courtt o r educe the amount of damages , ar gui ng thatthe $1, 000, 000 j udgm entw as exces s i ve and agai ns tt he overw hel m i ng w ei ghtof the evi dence
. O urcas e l aw hol ds thatf

ora def endantt o be ent i t l ed t o a r educt i on, s uch damages “mustbe s o exce s s i ve
as t o s tr i ke manki nd, at f i rs tbl us h, as bei ng, beyond al l m eas ur e, unr eas onabl e, and outr ageous , and s uch as m ani f es t l y s how the j ury t o have be en ac tuat ed by pas s i on, part i al i ty, pr ej udi ce, orcorrupt i on. ” U n itedS ta tes Fid

. & G u a r. Co . v. E sta te o f Fra n c is , 825 So. 2d 3 8 , 4 7 (M iss . 2 0 0 2 ). T h e a w a rd is no t t o b e se t as id e u n les s it is e n tirely d isp ro p o rtio n a te to th e in ju ry s u s ta in e d
. G atew ood v. Sam ps on , 812 So. 2d 212, 222 ( M i s s . 2002) ( ci t i ng Illin o is10

Centr al R . R . v. G andy , 750 So. 2d 527, 534 ( M i s s . 1999))
. C om pens at i on i n a w r ongf ul death a c t i on i s n otl i mi t e d t o a c tua l d a mage s a nd l os twage s , b ute xt e nd s t o the p ai n and
s u ff e ri n g o f t h e d e c e a s e d , a s w e ll a s th e lo s s o f c o m p a n io n s h ip a n d s o c ie ty . T hom as v. H il bu rn , 6 5 4 S o . 2 d 8 9 8 , 9 0 3 (M iss. 1 9 9 5 ). ¶22. W hi l e i n the car e of D R M C , V ent on de vel oped a beds or e m eas ur i ng s i x by t en i nches i n di amet er . T he C our tf ound t hatby the t i m e V ent on l ef tD R M C on February 17, 1999, t he ul cerw as l ar ge enough thata vol l eybal l coul d b e p l ace d i ns i de i t . A l though both part i es agr eed thatthe s t andar d of car e mandat es turni ng a pat i ent every tw o hour s , the medi cal
recor ds show thatD el t a R egi onal f ai l ed t o m eetthi s benchmar k dur i ng the maj or i ty of V enton’s st ay, even aft er s he fi rs t de v elop ed a skin t ear. In the m edical recor ds, a nu rs e changi ng V ent on’ s dr es s i ng des cr i bed “pi cki ng outl i t t l e pi ece s of bone f r om the dr es s i ng as it w a s re m o v e d fr o m h e r b a c k s id e .” ¶23. T es t i m ony r evea l ed that V ent on exper i ence d s ubs t ant i al pai n and s uf f er i ng f r om t he t i m e s he ent er ed the f

aci l i ty unt i l herdeath. C om par i ng amount s deemed s ui t abl e i n ot her
n e g lig e n c e c a s e s , a n a w a rd o f $ 1 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 is n o t o u tr a g e o u s . See P u r do n v. L o c k e, 807 So. 2 d 3 7 3 (M iss . 2 0 0 1 ) (u p h o ld in g a w a rd fo r $ 4 5 0 ,0 0 0 fo r m e d ica l n e g lig e n c e re su lti n g in
severe sor eness an d d isco m fort); Hol m es C ou n t

y B ank & T

r ust Co. v. Staple Cotton Coope r ati v e Ass ’n. , 4 9 5 S o . 2 d 4 4 7 (M iss. 1 9 8 6 )(r eins tat ing jury v erd icto f $2 0 0 , 0 0 0 w h ere
s eventy- f

i ve- year - ol d pl ai nt i f

f i ncurr ed nec k i nj ur i es )
. D R M C pr es ent ed no evi dence
s how i ng thatthe tr i al j udge w as i nf l uence d by pa s s i on, part i al i ty, pr ej udi ce orcorrupt i on, th e re fo re , this iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit.11 I V . C oncl usi on ¶24. Forthe f

or egoi ng r eas ons , the j udgm entof the l ow ercourti s af

f i r m ed. ¶ 2 5 . AF F I RM ED . SM I TH , C . J. , W A LL ER A N D D I A Z, P. JJ . , E A SLE Y , C A R LSO N , G R A V ES, DI CKI NS ON AND RA NDOL P H, J J . , CONCUR.