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 5 - CT - 0 0 1 6 6 - S CT J OR DA N K YL E S

M I T H, A MI NOR , BY

AN D THROUGH

HI SNATURAL M OTHER AND NEXT FRI EN D, STEPHA NI

E SM I TH
v. GI L M OR E MEMORI

AL HOS P I T AL , I NC . AN D GI LM ORE HEALT

H SYS TEMS, I

NC. O N W R IT O F C E R T IO R A R I D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 01/ 19/ 2005 TRI AL J UDG E: HON
. P AUL S
. F UND ERB URK COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: M ONROE COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT ATT ORNEY F OR APP EL LANT: ROY O. P ARKER, S R. ATT ORNEYS F OR APP EL LE E: J OHN G. W HEE LE R M AR GA RET SAM S GRA TZ NATURE OF THE CAS E: CI VI L - M EDI CAL M ALP RACTI CE 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 RE VE RS E D, AND T HE J UD GM ENT O F THE M ON RO E CO UN TY CI RC UI T CO UR T I S RE I NS T AT E D AND A FFIRM E D - 03/ 22/ 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: EN BA NC. S M I TH, CH I EF J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. T hi s cas e comes t o thi s C our t on w r i t of cer t i orar i fr om a j udgm ent of the C our tof A p p e a ls w h ich re v e rse d a n d r e m a n d e d th e c irc u it co u rt’s g ra n t o f su m m a ry ju d g m e n t. Jo rda n S m ith , a m ino r, b y an d thro u g h h is m o th e r S tep h an ie S m ith (S m ith ), su ed G il m o re M em o ri al H o sp it al, Inc
. , G il m o re H ea lth S y ste m s (G M H ), G
. E d w ard B rya n t, Jr. (D r.D r . B r y ant and t he ot her def endants hav e pre vi ou sl y se t t l ed w i t h S m i t h and t hei r ca se s have been 1 di s m i s s e d. P to sis is a c o n d itio n w h e re th e e y e lid d ro o p s o v e r th e e y e . P to sis , if lef t u n c o rre c te d , ca n re su lt in 2 d a m a g e to th e e y e ’ s v isu a l d e v e lo p m e n t. 

### 2 B r ya nt ) a nd o the r s f

ora l l e ge d i nj ur i e s r e c e i ve d w he n D r . Br ya ntmi s t a ke nl y pe r f or m ed a
s ur gi cal oper at i on on J or dan Sm i th’ s uni m pai r ed l ef teyel i d r athert han on hi s i m pai r ed r i ght eyel i d. 1 ¶2. G M H m oved f

or s um m ary j udgm ent , ar gui ng ent i t l ement t o j udgm ent as a m att erof l aw bas ed on Sm i th’ s f

ai l ur e t o de s i gnat e a medi cal expertw i tnes s as r equi r ed i n M i s s i s s i ppi t o pr ove a c l ai m of

m edi cal negl i gence . Sm i th r es ponded t o G M H ’ s m ot i on by advanc i ng he w as exemptf

r om pr oduci ng an expe r tw i tnes s undert he “l aym an’ s exce pt i on. ” The ci r cui tcourtdecl i ned t o appl y the l ayman’ s exce pt i on and g ra nt ed G M H ’ s m ot i on f or
s um m ary j udgm ent . Sm i th a ppeal ed. T he C our tof A ppeal s r ever s ed the deci si on of t he
c ir c u it c o u rt a n d re m a n d e d th e c a s e . Sm ith v. G il m or e Mem ’l

Hos p. , I nc. , 2006 M i s s . A pp. L E X IS 4 0 2 (M iss . C t. A p p . 2 0 0 6 ). G M H a p p e a led a n d th is C o u rt g ra n ted c e rtio ra ri. ¶3. Fi ndi ng thatthe ci r cui tcourt ’ s gr antof s um m ary j udgm entw as pr oper , w e r ever s e the j udgm entof

the C our tof

A ppeal s and af

f i r m the ci r cui tcourt ’ s gr antof s um m ary j udgm ent i n f a v o ro f GM H. FACTS ¶ 4
. O n M a rc h 2 8 , 2 0 0 1 , th e n tw o -y e a r- o ld J o rd a n S m ith (Jo rd a n ) w a s a d m itt e d to G ilm o re M e m o ria l H o sp ital to u n d e rg o e lec tiv e o u tp a tien t su rg e ry to re p a ir a p to sis o f h is 2
r i ghteyel i d. D r . B r yant , w ho w as notan empl oyee of G M H , w as t o per f

or m the corr ect i ve
s ur gery on the r i ghteye and conductan exam i nat i on underanes thes i a t o t he l ef teye. Pr i orT h e p art i es hav e d i ff eri n g acco u n ts o f t h e d et ai l s of t h e co n v ersat i o n be t w een S m i t h an d N u rs e 3 P h illip s. S in c e th is is a c a s e o f su m m a ry ju d g m e n t, in fe re n c e s w ill b e re so lv e d in th e lig h t m o st fa v o ra b le to th e n o n -m o v in g p a rty , S m ith
. See B row n v. Cre di t Center , I n c. , 444 So
. 2d 3 58 , 362 ( M i ss . 198 3) ( “W hen d o u b t ex ists w h e th e r th e re is a fa c t iss u e , th e n o n -m o v in g p a rty g e ts its b e n e fit.” ). 

### 3 to b eg inn ing the s u rge ry, D r. B rya n t con fi rm ed w ith the o p era ti n g ro o m staff tha t th e su rge ry
w as t o be conduc t ed on t he r i ghteye. N onethel es s , D r . B ryanti nadvert ent l y began ope r at i ng
o n th e le ft e y e . ¶5. A f

t er m aki ng onl y a s m al l i nci s i on, D r . B ryant r eal i zed hi s m i s t ake. H e i ns truct ed Shi r l ey Phi l l i ps ( N ur s e Phi l l i ps ) , the ci r cul at i ng nur s e f orthe oper at i ng r oom , t o cont act J or dan’ s m other , St ephani e Sm i th ( Sm i th) , t o c onf i r m thatthe s ur gery w as t o be per f or m ed
o n th e rig h t ey e . S m ith alle g e s th a t du rin g the c o n v e rsa tio n w ith N u rse P h ill ip s th a t S m ith
as ked i f e ve r ythi ng was a l l r i gh ta nd tha tNur s e Ph i l l i ps a s s ur e d he rtha t“ e ve rythi ng w as fi n e .” 3 ¶6. A f

t er N ur s e Phi l l i ps ’ s di s cus s i on w i th Sm i th, D r . B ryant compl et ed the oper at i on on J or dan’ s r i ghteyel i d. Fol l ow i ng the pr ocedur e, D r . Brya ntdi s cus s ed hi s m i s t ake w i th Sm i th. T he mi s t ake r es ul t ed i n Jor dan’ s l ef teye be i ng s w ol l en f

orappr oxi m at el y tw o w eeks
. J or dan suff ered no l on g-t erm dam age to hi s l efteye an d n ow has go od vis i on i n b oth eyes. ¶7. I n hi s c om pl ai nta gai ns tG M H , the Sm i ths al l eged thatby nott el l i ng M r s . Sm i th about D r . B ryant ’ s m i s t ake pr i ort o cont i nui ng the oper at i on on Jor dan’ s ri ghteye, t hatG M H and N u rse P h il li p s fail ed to m ee t th e re q u ir ed stan d ard of ca re. T h e circu itco u rtrejected S m ith ’s
ar gum ent , hol di ng: In th e a b se n c e o f g u id a n c e fr o m a q u a lified h e a lth e x p e rt. . . a la y ju ry w o u ld notbe abl e t o det erm i ne the s t andar d of car e f ora s ur gi cal nur s e i n the appl i c a bl e c i r c ums t a nc e w he r e the a t t e nd i ng s ur ge on un i l a t e r a l l y a nd i ndepende nt l y exer ci s ed hi s j udgm entnott o t el l a mi norpat i ent ’ s par entabout

### 4

a s ur gi cal m i s hap and spe ci f i cal l y as ked the s ur gi cal nur s e t o cont actthe p a re n t fo r th e p u rp o se o f c o n firm in g w h ich e y e lid w a s to b e su rg ica lly r epai r ed. T he C our tof

A ppeal s r ever s ed and r emanded the gr antof s um m ary j udgm ent , concl udi ng thatthe l ayman’ s exce pt i on appl i ed and thatw hetherN ur s e Phi l l i ps fai l ed t o m eett he
s t andar d of

car e w as a qu est i on of f actthats houl d be dec i ded by a j ury. W e gr ant ed
c e rtio ra ri. I S S UE I
. Do e s t h e La y m a n ’ s Ex c e p t i o n App l y W h e r e t h e J u r y W o u l d Be R equi red t o D et erm i ne t he St andard of C are of a M edi cal P r o fe ss io n a l? STAN DA RD OF REV I EW ¶8
. “W e e m p loy th e d e n o v o s tan d a rd in re v iew in g a tri al co u rt ’s gra n t of su m m ary j udgm ent . ” B r ow n v. J. J. Fergus on Sand & G r avel Co. , 858 S o. 2d 129, 130 ( M i s s . 2003) ( ci t i ng O ’N

e a l S tee l, In c . v. Mille tte , 7 9 7 S o . 2 d 8 6 9 , 8 7 2 (M iss . 2 0 0 1 )). T h e m o v in g p a rty
s hal l be g r a nt e d j ud gmen t“ i f the p l e a di ng s , d e po s i t i on s , a ns w e r s t o i nt e rr og a t or i e s and
a d m iss io n s o n file, to g e th e r w ith aff id a v its, if an y , sh o w tha t th e re is no g e n u in e issu e a s to any m at eri al f

actand t hat the m ov i ng party i s enti t l ed t o j ud gm ent as a m at t er of l aw . ” M i ss. R . C iv . P . 5 6 (c ). ¶ 9
. “ S u m m a ry ju d g m e n ts , in w h o le o ri n p a rt , s h o u ld b e g ra n te d w ith g re a t c a u tio n .” Br o wn , 444 So. 2d at363. H ow ever , “[s ] um m ary j udgm enti s m andat ed w her e the
r es pondenthas f

ai l ed ‘ t o m ake a s how i ng suf f i ci entt o est abl i s h t he exi s t ence of a n el ement essent i al t o thatparty' s case, and on w hich that par ty w i l l bear the b urden o f pr oo f attri al
. ' " W il bo u rn v. S ten n ett

, W il kinson & W

ard , 687 So. 2d 1205, 1214 ( M i ss. 1 996) ( ci t i ng

### 5

G allow ay v. T

r avel ers I ns. Co. , 515 So. 2d 678, 683 ( M i s s . 1987) ( quot i ng Celote x Corp.
v. Ca tre tt , 4 7 7 U .S . 3 1 7 , 3 2 2 (1 9 8 6 ))
. DI S CU S S I ON ¶1 0. I n as s er t i ng hi s ne gl i ge nc e c l a i m, Smi th a r gu e d tha tGM H b r e ache d i t s r equi r ed
s t andar d of

car e w hen N ur s e Phi l l i ps f ai l ed t o i nf

or m S m i th’ s m otherof D r . B ryant ’ s m i s t ake p rio r to h is b e g in n in g o p e ra tio n o n th e c o rre c t ey e lid . H o w e v e r, S m ith fa iled to d e sig n a te an expe r tw i tnes s t o t es t i f y t o t he appr opri at e s t andar d of car e. “‘ I n a medi cal m al pr act i ce act i on, neg l i gen ce can no tbe est abli shed w i tho ut m edical t est i m on y thatthe d efe ndant s f ai l ed to u se o rd inary sk il l and ca re.’ ” T ravis v. S tew art , 680 So. 2d 214, 218 ( M i s s . 1996) ( quot i ng P h ill

ip s v. Hu ll , 5 1 6 S o . 2 d 4 8 8 , 4 9 1 (M iss. 1 9 8 7 )). Ind ee d , in the ab sen ce o f a
rec o g n ized ex ce p ti o n , “e x p ert t esti m o n y is ge n era ll y req u ir ed to su rviv e su m m ary j udgm ent . ” S h e

ffie ld v. G o o dw in , 740 So. 2d 854, 856 ( M i s s . 1999) ( ci t i ng Colem an , 706 S o . 2 d a t 6 9 8 -9 9 ; T

r a v is, 6 8 0 S o . 2 d a t 2 1 8 ; Pa l m e rv. Ande rs o n I

nf ir m a r y Be ne v o le nt A ss’n , 656 So. 2d 790, 795 ( M i s s . 1995) )
. A s s uch, the ci r cui tcourtpr oper l y det erm i ned that S mi t h , w i th o u tp r o v i d i n g a me d i c a l e x p e r twi tn e s s , wo u l d n o tb e a b l e t o p r o v e h i s p r i ma fac ie c ase of m edical neg l i gen ce i n thi s com pli cat ed case, theref ore the tr i al co u rt
a p p ro p ri a te ly g ra n te d s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. ¶11. N ot abl y, thi s C our thas l ong r ecogni zed a n exce pt i on t o the gener al rul e r equi r i ng a
m edi cal experti n “i ns t ance s w her e a l ayman can obs erve and unde r s t and the negl i gence as a mat t erof

comm on s ens e and pr act i cal exper i ence . ” Co le m a n , 706 So. 2d at698 ( quot i ng E rby v. N

orth Miss. Med

. Ctr. , 6 5 4 S o . 2 d 4 9 5 , 5 0 0 (M is s . 1 9 9 5 ). See al s o H am m ond v. G r is s om , 4 7 0 S o . 2 d 1 0 4 9 , 1 0 5 2 (M iss . 1 9 8 5 ); T r app v. Cays on , 4 71 S o. 2 d 37 5, 38 0 (M i ss.

### 6

1 9 8 5 ); D azet

v. B ass , 254 So. 2d 183, 187 ( M i s s . 1971). T his exce pt i on has been t erm ed the “ laym an ’s ex ce p ti o n . ” T h e lay m an ’s ex ce p ti o n i s co m m o n ly ap p li ed i n situ ati o n s w h ere p h y s ic ia n s o r h o s p ita l s ta ff h a v e le ft fo re ig n o b

je c ts in s id e th e p a tie n t, Colem an , 706 So. 2d
a t 6 9 6 , o r g iv e n th e p a ti e n t th e w ro n g m e d ic a tio n , D ail ey v. Meth odist

Med. Ctr. , 790 So. 2 d 9 0 3 (M iss . 2 0 0 1 ). H o w e v e r, an a p p lica tio n o f th e lay m a n ’s e x c e p tio n n o t o n ly to situ a tio n s w h e re th e re is b lata n t n e g lig e n c e b u t als o to situ a tio n s in v o lv in g ju d g m e n t ca lls
m ade by pr of

es s i onal s w oul d be over l y br oad. ¶12. “M edi cal m al pr act i ce c as es gener al l y r equi r e expe r tw i tnes s es t o ass i s tthe tr i erof f act t o under s t and the evi dence
. ” P al m erv. B iloxiR eg’l

Med. Ctr. , I

nc. , 564 So. 2d 1346, 1357 ( M i s s . 1990) ( ci t i ng K

il pa trick v. M

iss. B ap tist

Med. Ctr. , 4 6 1 S o . 2 d 7 6 5 , 7 6 8 (M iss. 1 9 8 4 )) ( ci t at i ons om i tt ed)
. I n the i ns t antcas e, atf i r s tgl ance i tm i ghtappea rt o a l ayman, even
w i thoutthe as s i s t ance of a medi cal expert , thatthe phys i ci an w as negl i gent . D r . B ryanthas
a d m itt e d to th e p lain tiff th a t h e m a d e a m ista k e . T h is, h o w e v e r, is n o t th e situ a tio n w ith
w hi ch thi s C our ti s conf r ont ed. H er e, w e mustdeci de w hethera nur s e f ai l ed t o m eett he
re q u ire d sta n d a rd o f c a re b y ch o o sin g n o t to g o b e y o n d h e r su p e rv isin g p h y sic ian ’s a u th o rity and i nf or m a pa t i ent ’ s mot herof the doct or ’ s i ni t i al mi s t ake. T o a s k a j ury t o d et ermi ne
w hetherthi s w as be yond the s t andar d of car e w i thoutbei ng t ol d w hatcons t i tut ed the pr oper
s t andar d of

car e by an e xpertw oul d be i nappr opr i at e. ¶13. I n S h e

ffie ld v. G o o d w in , 7 4 0 S o . 2 d 8 5 4 (M iss . 1 9 9 9 ), th is C o u rt d e c lin e d to a p p ly th e lay m a n ’s e x c e p tio n to a llo w a d e n tal p a tien t t o tes tify tha t he r d o c to r a c ted n e g lig e n tly beca us e he “ di d nothi ng. ” S h e ffie ld , 7 4 0 S o . 2 d a t8 5 7
. W e s t a t e d “ [ d ] i a g n o s i n g s y mp t o ms and pr es cr i bi ng ant i bi ot i cs i s beyond the ‘ comm on know l edge of l aymen. ’ ” I

d. at858.

### 7

D i agnos i ng s ym pt om s and pr es cr i bi ng ant i bi ot i cs ar e act i vi t i es thati nvol ve a medi cal pr of es s i onal ’ s j udgm ent–j udgm entthatw oul d re qui r e a medi cal expertt o det erm i ne w hether it f a ile d to m e e t th e re q u ir e d s ta n d a rd o f c a re . ¶ 1 4
. S i mi l a r l y , a n u r s e ’ s d e c i s i o n n o t t o g o b e y o n d h e r s u p e r v i s o r ’ s a u th o r i ty t o i n f o r m a p a tien t’s m o th e r o f a n in iti a l m ista k e is a ju d g m e n t ca ll. “ L a y te s tim o n y is s u ffic ien t to
es t abl i s h onl y thos e thi ngs thatar e pur el y f actual i n na tur e orthoughtt o be i n the comm on know l edge of

l aymen. ” S h e

ffie ld , 740 So. 2d at857 ( quot i ng Colem an , 7 0 6 S o . 2 d at 69 8 ). S in c e N u rse P h ill ip s’ a c tio n s in v o lv e d a ju d g m e n t c a ll, a n d n o t so m e th in g “ p u re ly fa c tu a l in natur e, ” expe r tt es t i m ony i s r equi r ed. ¶ 1 5
. W e n o te th a t Ju d g e Irv in g o f th e M iss iss ip p i C o u rt o f A p p e a ls c o rre c tly w ro te in h is d is s e n t t h e im p o rt a n c e o f th e r e la tio n s h ip b e tw e e n p a tie n ts , n u rs e s a n d p h y s ic ia n s . Sm ith , 2006 M i s s . A pp. LE X I S at*14 ( I r vi ng, J
. , di s s ent i ng)
. “The pr ematur e r el eas e of m edi cal i nf or m at i on, w hethert o t he pati entoranother , can s om et i m es have s ever e nega t i ve
cons equenc es f

orthe pat i ent . I n my j udgm ent , a l ayper s on i s i l l equi pped t o know the exa ct poi nti n t i m e, d ur i ng a medi cal pr ocedur e, w hen i nf or m at i on r egar di ng a medi cal m i s hap
s houl d be s har ed w i th t he pat i ent . ” Id
. W e a g re e w ith th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls’s d iss e n t. ¶1 6
. H ere , the C o u rto f A p p ea ls erred b y co n clud ing th at th is ca se is o n e in w h ich a jury
co u ld u n d erstan d the s tand ard of ca re w ith o u t the a ssist an ce of an ex p ert w itn ess. A lay ju ry
w oul d notbe abl e t o det erm i ne t he pr operst andar d of ca r e thats houl d have be en exe r ci s ed b y N u rse P h ill ip s. W ith o u t kn o w in g the p ro p e r sta n d a rd o f c a re , the ju ry w o u ld b e u n a b le t o det erm i ne w hetherN ur s e Phi l l i ps bre ache d t hatst andar d of ca r e by notgoi ng beyond her di r ects upervi s or ’ s or der s and not i f yi ng Sm i th of

D r . B ryant ’ s m i s t ake.

### 8 CO NC L US I ON ¶17. W e r ever s e the C our tof A ppeal s a nd r ei ns t at e the tr i al courtj udgm entf orthe r eas ons ci t ed above
. ¶ 1 8
. T HE J UD GMEN T OF T HE CO UR T OF AP P E AL S I S RE VE RS E D, AN D T HE J UDG M ENT OF THE M ON RO E COU NTY CI RCU I T COU RT I S REI NST ATED AND AF F I RM ED . W A L L E R , P .J ., C A R L S O N , G R A V E S , D IC K IN S O N A N D R A N D O L P H , J J ., CO NC UR . E AS L E Y, J . , DI S S E NT S W I T H S E P AR AT E W RI T T E N O P I NI ON J OI NE D B Y D I AZ , J . CO B B , P . J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG . E AS L E Y, J US T I CE , DI S S E NT I NG : ¶19. St ephani e Sm i th ( Sm i th) t oo k her t w o- year ol d s on t o G i l m or e M emori al H os pi t al (G M H ) t o h ave co rr ect i ve surgery perform ed o n h i s r ighteyel i d. Sm i th’ s son suf f er ed f r om
a c o n d it ion k n o w n as p tosis w h ere th e ey eli d dro o p s ov er th e ey e, w h ich c an affec t th e e y e’s vis ual dev el op m ent. T here w as nothi ng w rong w i th S m i th’s s on ’s left eyel i d thatr equi r ed
s ur gery. ¶20. D r . E dw ar d B r yantper f or m ed t he sur gery. W hen D r . B ryants t art ed t o oper at e on the lefteyel i d, he conf

i r m ed w i th the oper at i ng s t af f t hathe w as t o oper at e on t he rig h t eyel i d. D es pi t e that , D r . B r yantbegan ope r at i ng on the lefte y e lid , m a k ing an incision
. W h en D r. B ryantr eal i zed thathe cuton t he l ef teyel i d, h e instruct ed N ur s e Shi r l ey Phi l l i ps , t he ci r cul at i ng nur s e, t o chec k w i th the mi norchi l d’ s m othert o s ee w hi ch eyeli d he w as
s uppos ed t o oper at e on. ¶2 1
. N u rse P h il li p s co n tacted S m ith
. S m ith a lleg e d , in the fac ts s u b m itted fo r sum m ary j udgmenta nd u s e d f

orp urpo s e s o f

thi s a pp e a l , tha tNur s e Ph i l l i ps the n t ol d he rt hat

### 9

“eve rythi ng w as f

i ne. ” N ur s e Phi l l i ps di d nott el l Sm i th thatthe doct orhad alr eady cuton the w r ong eye. Sm i th w as noti nf or m ed of the mi s t ake unt i l hers on w as i n r ecove ry. ¶2 2
. S m ith su ed G M H all eg ing that N u rse P h il li p s h ad fail ed to m ee t the stan d ard o f ca re by noti nf

or m i ng herof

hers on’ s condi t i on and f al s el y t el l i ng hert hateverythi ng w as f i ne. D r . B ryantsett l ed t he m edi cal m al pr act i ce c l ai m agai ns thi m . O n appea l , the maj or i ty hol ds that S m ith w as req u ir ed t o ha v e a q u ali fi ed m ed ical ex p ert in ord er t o av o id su m m a ry ju d g m e n t. ¶2 3. I agr e e t ha ti n the va s tm a j or i ty of ca s e s of m e di c a l m a l pr a c t i c e a q ua l i f i e d med i cal experti s r equi r ed t o as s i s tthe tr i erof f acti n un derst andi ng the evi dence and s ur vi ve a
m o tio n fo r s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. See S h e ffie ld v. G o o dw in , 740 So
. 2d 85 4, 85 6 (M iss
. 1 9 9 9 ); T ravis v. S tew art , 6 8 0 S o . 2 d 2 1 4 , 2 1 8 (M iss . 1 9 9 6 ); P alm er v. B iloxiR eg’l Med. Ctr. , I nc ., 5 6 4 S o . 2 d 1 3 4 6 , 1 3 5 7 (M iss . 1 9 9 0 ). “A b se n t er ro r so o b v io u s th a t a la y m a n c o u ld
eas i l y det erm i ne f

aul t , exper tt es t i m ony i s gener al l y r equi r ed t o s ur vi ve s um m ary j udgm ent and es t abl i s h t he negl i gence of a phys i ci an. ” S h e

ffie ld , 740 So. 2d at856. ¶24. H ow ever , t hi s C our thas s peci f i cal l y r ecogni zed a “l ayman’ s exce pt i on. ” Colem an
v. R ic e, 706 So. 2d 696, 698-99 ( M i s s . 1997) ( no exper tw as r equi r ed w her e a f or ei gn obj ect
w a s le ft i n th e b o d y b y a p h y sic ian o r h o sp ital sta ff); see al so D a iley v. Me th o dist Me d . Ctr ., 790 So. 2d 903, 912 ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2001) ( ci t i ng Colem an , 7 0 6 S o . 2 d a t 69 8 -99 ) (no ex p ert
w a s r e qu i r e d wher e pa t i e ntw a s gi ve n the w r on g med i c a t i on )
. I n C olem an , 706 S o. 2d at 698- 99, thi s C our thel d: A l ayman can under s t and, w i thoutexper tt es t i m ony, t hatt he unauthor i zed or unexpl ai ned l eavi ng of an obj ecti ns i de a pat i entduri ng sur gery i s negl i gence . T her ef or e, the C our tof

A ppeal s w as corr ecti n r ever s i ng s um m ary j udgm ent

### 10

gr ant ed i n f

avorof D r s . R i ce a nd R eddi x. D or othy C ol eman w as notr equi r ed t o s uppor thercl ai m , bas ed on r es i ps a l oqui tur , w i th expertt es t i m ony. D r s . R i ce a nd R eddi x both r el i ed i n thei rans w er s and i n thei rm ot i on for s um m ary j udgm enton the as s ert i on t hatnurs es w er e r es pons i bl e f orkeepi ng the s ponge countdu ri ng C ol eman' s s ur gery, and f ur therthatthi s i s comm on pr act i ce. T hi s def

ens e i s negat ed by ourdeci s i on i n Sauci er[ v. R oss , 112 M iss. 3 0 6 , 73 S o . 49 (19 1 6 )] , 11 2 M iss. at 31 4 , 7 3 S o . at 50 , w h ere this C o u rt s t at ed: I ti s no ans w ert o pl ai nt i f f ' s s ui tthatthe rubbertube may have been l ef ti n herw ound b y an att endantnur s e oranother phy s i c i a n i n the h os pi t a l
. Sh e t e s t i f i e d tha tDr
. Ros s was her phys i ci an and ope r at ed on herand att ended he rw hi l e i n the h o sp it al, an d that the o ther p h y sici an s w ere ac ti n g u n d er h is di r ect i ons i n the tr eatm entof her , and thathe di s char ged her fro m th e h o sp ital a t th e tim e sh e lef t. T hough de c i de d i n 19 16 , Sa uc i e rh a s n e ve rb e e n ov e rrul e d a nd r e mai ns t he l aw i n thi s j ur i s di ct i on. I tcomport s w i th case l aw f r om otherj ur i s di ct i ons w h ich h o ld th a t w h ile re sp o n sib ili ty fo r sp o n g e c o u n ts m a y b e d e leg a ted to s uppor ts t af

f , l i abi l i ty cannotbe. A s ur geon l eavi ng a s ponge i ns i de a pa t i ent i s notnegl i gentpers e, buta pr es um pt i on of negl i gence i s r ai s ed, w hi ch the s u rg e o n m a y a tte m p t to re b u t o r e x p la in
. R aviv. Coates , 662 So. 2d 218 ( A l a. 1 9 9 5 ); T ice v. H a ll , 3 1 0 N
. C
. 5 8 9 , 3 1 3 S
. E
. 2 d 5 6 5 (N
. C
. 1 9 8 4 ). T h e situ ati o n in th is ca se is an alog o u s to the c ase s d iscu ssed ab o v e inv o lving the lay m an ’s
exce pt i on. ¶2 5
. T h e m ajority stat es: “ T o a sk a jury to d eterm ine w h ethe r th is w as b ey o n d the stan d ard of car e w i thoutbei ng t ol d w hatthe pr opers t andar d of car e by an e xpertw oul d be i nappr opr i at e. ” M aj or i ty opi ni on, ¶ 12. W i th al l due r es pect , I di s agr ee. H er e, the mi nor
c h ild fo rtu n a tely su ffe re d n o lo n g -te rm d a m a g e fr o m th e o p e ra tio n , an d sh o u ld S m ith p re v a il
a t trial, I w o u ld e x p e c t th a t th e d a m a g e s in th is c a se w o u ld b e n o m in a l. ¶2 6
. H o w ev er, I d isag ree that the fac ts o f this ca se req u ir e an ex p ert. In this case , S m ith ’s al l egat i ons ar e mer el y thatthe nur s e f ai l ed t o i nf

or m Sm i th of

herm i no r son’ s condi t i on

### 11

w hen as ked and the nur s e shoul d nothave t ol d hert hathers on w as f i ne w hen the nur s e w as
aw a r e tha tthe d oc t orh a d c utthe wr on g e ye . The s e f a c t s a r e f

ora j ury t o de ci de and a n
ex p ert i s n o t n ec essa ry fo r a j u ry to u n d erstan d th e issue
. T h e p u rpo se o f req u ir ing an ex p ert i n m edi cal m al pr act i ce ca s es i s t o ass i s tt he t r i erof f acti n under s t andi ng t he evi dence w hen
m edi cal ques t i ons as t o pr opertr eatm entand the s t andar d of car e ar e r ai s ed. ¶27. W i thoutquest i on, m os tm edi cal pr act i ce c as es do i nvol ve compl ex m edi cal ques t i ons and s t andar ds of

c ar e thata r e f

or ei gn t o mostj ur or s . B utw hatr eas onab l e j uror cannot under s t and orrul e on evi dence pr es ent ed thata nur s e f ai l ed t o t rut hful l y i nf

or m a mi nor chi l d’ s m otheras t o the s t atus of herchi l d i n s ur gery? W hatpar entw oul d nothave be en
conce rned w hen hi s orhert w o- year - ol d chi l d w as i n sur gery and t hen w as as ked w hi ch eye
w as t o r ece i ve the oper at i on? W hatpar entw oul d notw antt o have be en i nf or m ed of w hat
w as r eal l y goi ng on w hen he ors he i nqui r ed? W oul d a par entst op t he f ur theroper at i on on the corr ecteye ha d he ors he bee n i nf or m ed of the negl i gence al r eady i nf l i ct ed? ¶28. T hes e al l egat i ons ar e not beyond the j ury’ s abi l i t i es and under s t andi ng. N o compl ex
m edi cal know l edge i s r equi r ed. T hi s boi l s dow n t o the trus tthatpat i ent s and thei rf ami l i es puti n thei rm edi cal pr ovi der s . T hatt rus ti s under m i ned w hen f al s e i nf or m at i on i s pr ovi ded. T he f act s of this case ar e s i m i l art o s i tuat i ons w her e the w r ong m edi cat i on w as gi ven t o a p a tie n t, a n d a n e x p e rt w a s n o t r e q u ir e d to s u p p o rt th a t a lle g a tio n . See D ailey , 790 So. 2d at 912. I n D ailey , the C our tof A ppeal s hel d: O u r ge n era l ru le i s th at m ed ical n eg li g en ce m ay be estab li sh ed on ly b y ex p ert m edi cal t es t i m ony, w i th t he exc ept i on f ori ns t ance s w her e a l aym an can

### 12

o b serv e a n d u n d erstan d the n eg lig e n c e a s a m att er o f c om m on s e ns e and pr acti cal

exper ience . I d. (E m p h asis ad d ed ). ¶29. I n thi s cas e, the doct or oper at ed on the w r ong body part . Inst ead of i nform i ng t he
m i norchi l d’ s f

ami l y duri ng t he s ur gery of the mi s t ake, the f

ami l y w as t ol d by N ur s e Phi l l i ps thateverythi ng w as f

i ne bef or e the corr ectsur gi cal proc edur e w as per f or m ed on the corr ect b o d y p a rt. W h a t is c o m p lica ted a b o u t th a t? S u re ly , the ju ro rs a re c a p a b le o f a p p ly in g th e ir
com m on sense and pract i cal exp eri ence in un derst and i ng these al l egati on s. ¶3 0
. W h ile m y d e c isio n is s o lely b a se d o n th e fa c ts of this ind iv id u a l ca se , w h ich is di s t i ngui s habl e f

r om the nor m al pr ocedur e of r et ai ni ng a n e xperti n a medi cal pr act i ce c as e, I f i nd that this case f

al l s und er the laym an’s excepti on . T he record ref l ect s that the “error[ i s]
s o obvi ous thata l ayman coul d eas i l y det erm i ne f aul t . ” S h e

ffie ld , 740 So. 2d at856. B as ed
on this C ou rt ’s est abli shed an d co nti n u ed rec o g nit i on of the laym an’s excepti on , I m ust
re sp e c tfu lly d iss e n t. A c c o rd in g ly , I w o u ld a ffirm th e ju d g m e n t o f th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls
w h ich re v e rse d th e ju d g m e n t of the circ u it c o u rt an d rem a n d e d the ca se to th e c irc u it co u rt. DI AZ , J . , J OI NS THI S OP I NI ON.