I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 1 0 - CT - 0 1 5 2 7 - S CT K EN E. C L E V EL A ND , GE OR GE T

. S MI THV A N IZ , M .D ., A N D J A C K S O N H M A , IN C ., d /b /a CENTRAL MI

S S I S S I PP I M EDICAL CENTER
v. L AN EL L HAMI

L , I NDI VI DUA L L Y A ND ON BEH ALF O F TH

E W RO NG FU

L DE ATH BEN EFICI ARI ES OF EM

M ETT O . H

AM I L, DE CEA SED, W

H O A RE ENTI TLED TO REC OV ER U ND ER TH

E W RO NG FU

L DE ATH AN D SU RVI VAL STATUTE

ON W RI T OF CE RT I ORARI D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 06/ 07/ 2010 T RI AL J UDGE : HON. W I NS T ON L
. KI DD COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: HI NDS COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT A T T O R N E Y S F O R A P P E L L A N T : W H IT M A N B
. JO H N S O N , III M I CHAEL F
. M YERS L OR RA I NE W AL T E RS BO YKI N S TE P HEN P
. KRUGER J A N F
. G A D O W KR I S T OP HE R A L AN GR AHAM M AR K P
. CA RA W AY C O R Y L O U IS R A D IC IO N I AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L E E : AL T ON E AR L P E T E RS ON LA RR Y STA M PS A N I TA M
. STA M PS NAT UR E OF T HE CA S E : CI VI L - W RO NGF UL DE AT H DI S P OS I T I ON: T HE J UDGMENT OF T HE CO UR T OF AP P E AL S I S AF F I RMED I N P AR T AND RE VE RS E D I N P AR T
. T HE J UDGMENT OF T H E H IN D S C O U N T Y C IR C U IT C O U R T IS REV ERSED A ND REN DER ED - 08/ 08/ 2013 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:

### 2

EN BA NC. DI CK I NSON, PRES I DI NG J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶ 1
. A t trial in th is m e d ica l-n e g lig e n c e c a se , th e p la in tif f’ s o n ly e x p e rt a b a n d o n e d h is pr etr i al opi ni on and – overthe obj ect i on of the def endant– t es t i fi ed t o a new opi ni on that
w as neverdi s cl os ed i n di s covery. T he C our tof A ppeal s r ever s ed and r emanded f ora new trial. B u t b e c a u se th e tria l c o u rt sh o u ld h a v e g ra n ted a ju d g m e n t n o tw ith sta n d in g th e v e rd ict,
w e re v e rse in p a rt a n d re n d e r ju d g m e n t in fa v o r o f th e d e fe n d a n t.

F ACT S AND P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY ¶2. E m m ett H ami l w as admi t t ed t o C entr al M i s s i s s i ppi M edi cal C ent er , compl ai ni ng of
s ever e abdomi nal pai n. D r . G eor ge T. Sm i th- V ani z, a gas tr oent er ol ogi s t , tr eat ed H ami l f or g a stro in tes tin a l b lee d in g , an d D r. K e n E . C lev e lan d , a c a rd io v a sc u la r s u rg e o n , su rg ica lly
r epai r ed hi s ul cer . A f

t erappr oxi m at el y one w eek, H ami l w as di s char ged. T he nextm orni ng, H am il return ed to th e h o sp it al co m p lai n ing of furthe r st o m ac h p ain a n d b leed ing
. S u rge ry
rev ea led a sec o n d u lcer, w h ich h ad ero d ed a larg e b loo d v esse l and p rec ipit ated H am il ’s death. ¶3
. L an ell H am il fi led su it , all eg ing that the m ed ical m alpra cti ce o f D r. S m ith -V an iz, D r. C l evel and, and J acks on H M A caus ed the w r ongf ul death of he rhus band. D ur i ng di s covery, L anel l H ami l ’ s expert , D r . L oui s Si l verm an, opi ned thatH ami l ’ s doct or s devi at ed f r om the
s t andar d of

car e by f

ai l i ng t o pr es cr i be ant i
- ul cerm edi cat i on atH ami l ’ s di schar ge and al l ow i ng the s econd ul cert o devel op pos t - di s char ge. ¶4. A ttr i al , D r . Si l verm an admi t t ed he l at erbe came aw ar e thatthe doct or s had pr es cr i bed
s uch medi cat i on. B uthe had de vel oped a new theory of the doct or s ’ m al pr act i ce, opi ni ngCl evelan d v . Hamil, _

__ So . 3 d_

__ , 20 13 WL 93 62 17 , *9 (M iss
. Ct
. App. M arc h 1 2, 20 13 ). 1 Id. 2 Id. 3Id. 4 

### 3 overobj ect i on that , beca us e t he se cond ul cerw as devel opi ng w hi l e H ami l w as i n the h o sp it al, the d o ctors sh o u ld h av e d isco v ere d it p ri o r t o H am il ’s disch arg e. T h e p lai n ti ff pr es ent ed no addi t i onal expertt es t i m ony. ¶5. A t the cl ose of the plai nti ff’s case- i n-chi ef, the ci rcui t cou rt de n ied a m o ti o n for a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c tb y Dr
. S mi th
- Va n i z , b u tg r a n t e d a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c ti n f a v o ro f J a c k s o n HM A
exce ptf orany vi car i ous l i abi l i ty i thad t hr ough D r . S m i th- V ani z. T he j ury r eturned a ve r di ct i n f avorof the pl ai nt i f

f a gai ns ta l l thr ee def

endant s , a nd the ci r cui tcourtdeni ed thei rm ot i ons for jud g m en t no tw ith stan d ing the v erd ict(JN O V ). ¶6
. T h e C o u rt o f A p p ea ls rev erse d the jud g m en t ag ains t all three d efe n d an ts. T h e c o u rt 1
r ender ed j udgm entf

orD r . Sm i th- V ani z bec aus e i tf ound D r . Si l verm an – a thor aci c and
ca rdio v asc u lar surg eo n – u n q u ali fi ed to re n d er a n o p inion as to th e stan d ard o f ca re fo r a gas tr oent er ol ogi s t . B eca us e D r . Si l verm an w as t he pl ai nt i f f’ s s ol e expe r tand he w as 2 unqual i f i ed t o t es t i f

y agai ns tD r . Sm i th- V ani z, the courtf ound thatthe pl ai nt i f

f coul d not
es t abl i s h a p rim a fa c ie ca se o f m ed ical m alpra cti ce a n d ren d ere d jud g m en t i n fav o r of D r. Smi th- V a ni z . Furthe r , be c a us e J acks on H M A w as onl y vi car i ous l y l i abl e f orany negl i gence 3
o f D r. S m ith -V an iz, the c o u rtren d ere d jud g m en t i n it s fav o r. 4 ¶7
. T h e C o u rto f A p p ea ls f o u n d that D r. S il v erm an w as q u ali fi ed as an ex p ert t o test if y t o the s t andar d of

c ar e f orD r . Cl evel and, butthe courtf ound thatthe ci r cui tc our tha d abus edId. 5Id. 6 Id. at *8 (cit ing Un iv. of M iss . M ed . C tr. v. La nier , 9 7 S o. 3d

11 97 , 1 20 3 (M iss . 2 01 2))
. 7Id. (citi ng Bailey Lu mb er & Sup pl y Co. v. Robinson , 9 8 S o. 3d 98 6, 99 8 (M iss . 2 01 2); 8 Hyu nd ai Mo tor Am. v. Ap

plewh ite , 53 So . 3 d 7 49 , 7 59 (Mi ss. 20 11 ); T.K. Stanley, Inc. v. Cason , 61 4 S o. 2d

94 2, 95 0-5 1 (M iss . 1 99 2); Jo ne s v. Hat ch ett, 5 04 So. 2d 1 98 , 2 02 (Mi ss. 19 87 ); Sq ua re D Co. v. Edwards , 4 19 So . 2 d 1 32 7, 13 29 (Mi ss. 19 82 )). 

### 4 i t s di s c r e t i on by ov e rrul i ng the ob j e c t i on t o Dr
. Si l ve r man’ s pr e vi ou s l y u nd i s c l os ed t es t i m ony. T he courthel d t hatD r . S i l verm an’ s new t heory of D r . C l evel and’ s m al pr act i ce

5
cons t i tut ed tr i al by ambush and r emanded the ca s e f ora new tr i al agai ns tD r . C l evel and. 6 ¶ 8
. F o llo w in g D r. C lev e lan d ’s m o tio n fo r re h e a rin g , th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls m o d ified its
o ri g inal opini on t o exp l ai n w hy i thad rem and ed the case f or a new tri al aga inst D r. C l eveland, st at i ng that “w here a plai nti ff f ai l s t o off er qual i fi ed ex pertt est i m on y -- and , thu s, f ai l s t o pr es enta pr i m a f aci e ca s e -- the s upr eme courtand thi s courthave he l d thatthe def endanti s ent i t l ed t o j ud gm ent i n hi s f avor . ” B utthe courts t at ed that“w her e the

7 p rev ail ing p arty b li n d side s the o ther p arty w ith surp ri se ex p ert t esti m o n y , the s u p rem e c o u rt h as c o n sist en tl y rem ed ied th e u n fairnes s b y rem an d ing for a ne w tr ial
. ” T h ere fore , the c o u rt 8 f ound i tpr opert o r enderj udgm entf orD r . Sm i th- V ani z and J acks on H M A , w hi l e r emandi ng f ora new tr i al agai ns tD r . C l evel and. ¶9
. D r. C leve land p eti ti o n ed this C o u rtfor a w ri t of cert i orari , and w e gr ant ed cert i orari . A N A L Y S IS ¶1 0
. T h e sing le issue b efo re u s is w h ethe r the C o u rt o f A p p ea ls erred b y rem an d ing for a
new tr i al agai ns tD r . C l evel and, r atherthan r ender i ng a j udgm enti n hi s f avor . W e hol d that th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls e rre d b y re m a n d in g fo r a n e w trial.Hubbard v. W ansley , 9 5 4 S o . 2 d 9 5 1 , 9 5 6
- 5 7 ( M i s s . 2 0 0 7 ) (citi ng Drum mon d v . 9 Bu ck ley , 627 So. 2d 264, 268 (Miss. 1993) ( citing Burnham v. Tabb , 50 8 S o. 2d 10 72 , 1 07 4 (M iss
. 19 87 )))
. Id. at 957 (quoti ng Barner v. Gorman , 605 So. 2d 805, 809 (Miss. 1992) (citi ng Latham

10 v. Hayes , 4 95 So . 2 d 4 53 (Mi ss. 19 86 )))
. See ,e.g. McD on ald

v. Mem ’l H

os p. at G ul fpo rt, 8 So . 3 d 1 75 , 1 82 (Mi ss. 20 09 ); Hu bb ard, 11 95 4 S o. 2d

at 9 66 (Mi ss. 20 07 ); Trou pev. McA ul

ey , 9 55 So . 2 d 8 48 , 8 58 (Mi ss. 20 07 ). Lanier , 97 So. 3d at 1203. 12 

### 5 I n or dert o es t abl i s h a p rim a fa c ie c a s e o f m e d ic a l m a lp ra c tic e , a p lai n ti ff m u st pro v e “ (1) the ex ist en ce o f a d u ty by the d efe n d an t t o co n form t o a s peci f

i c s t andar d of

conductf

orthe pr ot ect i on of

other s agai ns tan unr eas onabl e r i s k of

i nj ury; ( 2) a f

ai l ur e t o conf

or m t o the r equi r ed s t andar d; a n d (3 ) a n in

ju ry to th e p lain tiff pr o x im a tely ca u se d b y the b re a c h o f su c h d u ty b y th e d e fe n d a n t.” 9 ¶11. A nd t o e s t abl i s h the s econd and thi r d pr ongs – thatthe def endantbr eached t he appl i cabl e s t andar d of

car e, and t hatt he br eac h proxi m at el y caus ed pl ai nt i f f’ s i nj ur i es – t he pl ai nt i f f m us tpr ovi de expe r tt es t i m ony. 10 ¶12. W e have af

f i r m ed grant s of sum m ary j ud gm ent and di r ect ed ver di ct s i n f avor of def endant s i n m edi cal
- m al pr act i ce a ct i ons w her e the pl ai nt i f f s fa i l ed t o produc e a qua l i f i ed expert . L i kew i s e, w e have r ever s ed a tr i al court ’ s deni al of a def endant ’ s m ot i on f

or 11 d ir ec ted v erd ictan d ren d ere d jud g m en t i n fav o r of the d efe n d a n t w h ere the p lai n ti ff’ s q u a lified e x p e rt fa iled to tes tify to a re a so n a b le d e g re e o f m e d ica l c e rta in ty . R e ly in g o n th is 12 author i ty, the C our tof

A ppeal s pr oper l y r ender ed j udgm enti n f avorof D r . Sm i th- V ani z and J a c k s o n HM A. ¶ 1 3
. W e fin d , h o w e v e r, th a t th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls a lso e rre d b y n o t re n d e rin g ju d g m e n t in f avor of D r . C l evel and. W hi l e D r . Si l verm an w as qual i f i ed as an expe r ti n car di ovas cul ar
s ur gery, hi s t es t i m ony concerni ng D r . C l evel and’ s br eac h of the s t andar d of

car e cons i s t edDuringdis co ve ry, Dr . S ilv ermanop ine d th at thesec on d ulcer de ve lop ed af ter Em mitt 13 Hamil left the hospital be cause his doct ors did not pr escr ib e anti-ul cer medication. At tr ial, he tes tif ied that th e doc tor s did p res cribeanti- ulc er medicatio n, but th at th e se co nd ulc er w as de ve lop ingan d s ho uld

havebe en

de tec ted whileHamil w as s til l in

theho sp ital. Hu bb ard , 954 So. 2d at957. 14 3M C o. v. Johnson , 895 So . 2 d 1 51 , 1 67 (Mi ss. 20 05 ); Wil so n v . G en eral Mo tor

s 15 Accep tan ce C

orp. , 883 So. 2d

56 , 6 3 (M iss . 2 00 4); Harrison v. Mc Millan , 828 So. 2d 756, 763 (Mi ss. 20 02 ). Hyu nd ai Mo tor Am . , 53 S o. 3 d at 7 49 (prod uc ts l iab ili ty) ; Bailey Lumber & SupplyCo. , 16 98 So . 3 d at 9 86 (premise s li ab ili ty) ; T. K. St an ley , I nc . , 6 14 So . 2 d at 94 2 (env iro nmentalpo llutio n); Jo ne s , 50 4 So
. 2d

at 1 98 (n eg lig ent ope ration o f a m oto r vehic le) ; Square D Co. , 419 So. 2d at 1327 (prod uc ts l iab ili ty)
. 

### 6 e n tirely o f a n e w the o ry tha t th e p lain tiff d id n o t d isc lo se . H a d th e trial ju d g e e x c lu d e d th is 13 t es t i m ony – as he s houl d have – t he pl ai nt i f f w oul d have been w i thoutany exper tt es t i m ony t o es t abl i s h thatD r . C l evel and br eac hed the s t andar d of car e. ¶1 4. M e di c a l ne gl i ge nc e c a s e s a r e di f f e r e nt f r om c a s e s tha t do no t c a l l i nt o qu e s t i on t he
s t andar d of

car e of a medi cal pr ovi der
. W hi l e expe r ttes t i m ony m ay be he l pf ul i n nonm edi cal negl i gence cas es , i ti s notr equi r ed. B utthe f ai l ur e t o produc e a c om pet entm edi cal expertprohi bi t s t he pl ai nt i f f fr om bri ngi ng t he cas e t o t r i al
. I ndeed, i n every ki nd of cas e, 14 a j udgm entnotw i ths t andi ng t he ver di cti s gener al l y appr opr i at e w her e the pl ai nt i f f has f ai l ed t o pr oduce s uf

f i ci entadmi s s i bl e evi dence t o es t abl i s h a pr i m a f aci e cas e, and the f

actthat 15 a tri al j u d g e e rron eo u sly a ll o w s ina d m issi b le ev iden ce into the rec o rd – w h ethe r ex p ert te s tim o n y o r o th e rw is e – d o e s n o t a b ro g a te th a t ru le
. ¶15. I n expl ai ni ng w hy i tr ema nd ed for a n ew tr i al ag ai ns tD r . C l evel and, the C our t of A p p e a ls c ite d s e v e ra l c a s e s , n o n e o f w h ic h re la te d to m e d ic a l n e g lig e n c e . T o b e c le a r, a 16 pl ai nt i f f m ay notuse i nadmi s s i bl e evi dence t o est abl i s h t he s t andar d of car e, orthata medi cal

### 7

pr ovi derf

ai l ed t o compl y w i th thats t andar d of c ar e. H er e, the pl ai nt i f f’ s onl y evi dence of D r . C l evel and’ s s t andar d of car e orbr eac h ther eof

w as i nadmi s s i bl e. A ccor di ngl y, i ti s cl ear th a t D r. C le v e la n d w a s e n title d to ju d g m e n t n o tw ith s ta n d in g th e v e rd ic t. CO NC L US I ON ¶16
. T he t ri al j ud ge err ed i n al l ow i ng D r. Si l verm an t o test if y to u n dis cl osed op i nions. A nd becaus e t he pl ai nt i f f fa i l ed t o est abl i s h a pr i m a f aci e cas e w i th admi s s i bl e evi dence , the tr ia l ju d g e e rr e d in fa ilin g to g ra n t D r . C le v e la n d ju d g m e n t n o tw ith s ta n d in g th e v e rd ic t. A ccor di ngl y, w e r ever s e the j udgm entof the C our tof

A ppeal s i n partand revers e t he j ud gm ent of

the H i nd s C ou nty C i rcui tC ou rt , renderi ng j ud gm ent f or al l defend ants . ¶ 1 7
. THE J UDGM EN T OF THE COURT OF AP P EA LS I S AF F I RM ED I N P ART AND REVERSED I N PAR T. THE J UDG M ENT OF THE H I NDS COUN TY CI RCUI T C OURT I S RE VE RS ED AND RE NDE RE D. W AL LE R, C. J . , RANDOL P H, P . J . , LA M AR, KI TC HENS , CHANDL ER , P I ER CE , KI NG AND COL EM AN, J J . , CONCUR
.