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 8 - I A- 0 0 6 0 2 - S CT HEND RICK K. KUI

PER a / k / a HEND RICK K. KUI PER AND RI VER RE GION M EDICAL CORPORAT

ION d / b / a PAR KVI

EW REGIONAL M ED ICA L CENT

ER d / b / a RI VER R EG

ION M ED ICA L CENT

ER d / b / a RI VER R EG

ION HEALT H SYS TEM
v. J OS EP H T AR NA BI

NE AN D M AR GA RE T

T I NA BRANAN D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 03/ 20/ 2008 TRI AL J UDG E: HON . I S ADO RE W . P ATRI CK, J R. COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: W ARREN COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT ATT ORNEYS F OR APP EL LANTS : R. E. P ARKER, J R. C L IF F O R D C . W H IT N E Y , III AT T ORNE Y F OR AP P E L L E E : M AR CI E T ANNE R S OUT HE RL AND NATURE OF THE CAS E: CI VI L - M EDI CAL M ALP RACTI CE D I SPO SI T I O N : R E V E R SE D A N D R E N D E R E D - 10/ 29/ 2009 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 C A R L SO N , P . J. , D I C K I N SO N A N D P I E R C E , JJ. DI CK I NSON, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1 . T h is ap p ea l add resse s w h ethe r th e tri al co u rterred in f a il ing to g ran t sum m ary j udgm enti n f

avorof the def endant s i n a m edi cal
- m al pr act i ce ac t i on af t ert he pl ai nt i f

f s f ai l ed t o f i l e any r es pons e and f

ai l ed t o pr ovi de any e vi dence , expertorotherw i s e, i n s upportof thei rcl ai m s atthe s um m ary j udgm enthear i ng . F i ndi ng thatthe tr i al courterr ed by f ai l i ng to g ran t th e d efe n d an ts’ m o ti o n for su m m ary jud g m en t, w e re v erse an d ren d er.The complaint in co rre ctly re fers to th e h ospital a s River Reg ion Ho sp ital. P ark

view 1 Ho sp ital ha s sin ce cl os ed and wa s o wn ed

byVi ck sb urgHe althc are , L LC , whic h w as not n amed as a party to this suit. Rive r Region Medica l Corporati on managed the hospital. 

### 2 F ACT S AND P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY ¶2. O n F ebruary 19, 2001, M artha J ones T arnabi ne w as admi tt ed as a pat i entt o Parkvi ew M edi cal C ent er w her e D r . H endr i ck K ui per(“ K ui per ”) per f orm ed sur gery t o re pai ra herni a. 1 A f t erthe s ur gery, s he deve l oped methi ci l l i n r es i s t antst aphyl ococc us aur eus ( M R SA )
. She
c o n tin u e d to b e tr e a te d b y D r. K u ip e r. M a rt h a T a rn a b in e d ie d o n S e p te m b e r 3 0 , 2 0 0 1 . ¶3. H erw rongful -death b enefi ci ari es ( “the T arnabi nes”) f i l ed suiton D ecem ber 31, 2001, agai ns tD r . K ui per , R i verR egi on M edi cal Foundat i on D / B /A R i ver M edi cal C ent er , and J ohn D oes 1 thr ough 5, al l egi ng medi cal mal pr act i ce. T he capt i on of the compl ai ntnamed

– “R iver R eg ion M edical C orporat i on /M ed ical F o u n d ati o n . ” T h e su m m o n s co n tai n ed a third
n a m e , “ R iv e r R e g io n H e a lth S y s te m s /M e d ic a l F o u n d a tio n D /B /A R iv e r R e g io n C e n te r.” ¶ 4 . T h e c o rp o ra te n a m e s o f t h e d e fe n d a n ts a re “ R iv e r R e g io n M e d ic a l C o rp o ra tio n ,”
w h ich m a n a g e d th e h o sp ital, an d “R iv e r R e g io n M e d ica l F o u n d a tio n ,” w h ich , ac c o rd in g to the appe l l ant s , i s a nonpr of i tchar i t abl e f

oundat i on havi ng no ow ner s hi p i nt er es tor
m anage m entrol e i n t he hospi t al ( thes e tw o ent i t i es her ei naf t ers hal l be col l ect i vel y r ef err ed to as “R iver R eg ion ”). ¶5. O n J ul y 8, 2005, the R i verR egi on def endant s f i l ed vi a s peci al appea r ance a mot i on t o di s m i s s bas ed on defect i ve proc es s and s ervi ce of pr oces s . O n Sept ember27, 2007, K ui pera nd the R i verRegi on de f endant s f i l ed a m ot i on f

ors um m ary j udgm enton the gr ound th a t, in tera lia , the T arnabi nes di d nothave a ny expertt es t i m ony t o s upportthei rcl ai m s of
m edi cal negl i gence . T he Tarnabi nes di d notf i l e any r es pons e t o t he m ot i on. O n D ece m berTh e n oti ce s tated , “ Pl eas e take n oti ce t hat th e Mo tio n toDi smissan d M oti on fo r S um m ary 2 Judgment by River Regi onMedi cal Corporat ion and River Region Me dical Foundati on, through un de rs igne d c ouns el , wi llbe br ou ght o n fo r h eari ngonth e 1 0th d ayof J anu ary , 2 0 08 , at 1 1: a. m. in the Circui t Court of Warren County . . . .” 

### 3 7, 2007, a not i ce of

hear i ng f

orthe mot i on f

ors um m ary j udgm ent w as s erved on the T arnabi nes , w hich, due t o i nadvert ence of the def endant s ’ couns el , f

ai l ed t o l i s tK ui peras one of the part i es br i ngi ng i t . A hear i ng on t he m ot i ons ( i ncl udi ng K ui per ’ s m ot i on) w as 2 h e ld b y th e trial c o u rt o n Ja n u a ry 1 0 , 2 0 0 8 , an d th e tria l ju d g e e n ter e d a n o rd e r d e n y in g b o th
m o tio n s. F ro m th a t o rd e r, th e d e fe n d a n ts ra ise th is in ter lo c u to ry a p p e a l. I S S UES RAI S ED ¶ 6 . K u ip e r a n d R iv e r R e g io n ra ise th e fo llo w in g iss u e s o n th is a p p e a l: I . W het her t he t ri al j udge erre d by d enyi ng D r. K ui per and R i ver R eg ion ’s M o ti o n for S u m m a ry J u d g m en t. II. W h eth er th e trial ju d g e e rr ed b y d en y ing R iver R eg ion ’s m o ti o n to d i sm i ss based on d efect i ve p rocess an d servi ce of pr ocess. A n affirm ati v e a n sw er is req u ir ed as to the firstissue an d , b eing d ispo sit ive o f th e c ase b efo re us , r ender s any di s cus s i on of i s s ue I I unnece s s ary.

A N A L Y S IS Sum m ar y J udgm e nt ¶7. T hi s C ourtappl i es a de novo st andar d of r evi ew t o the tr i al court ' s gr antordeni al of
a m o tio n f

o r s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. Mos s v. B ates vil le Cas ket Co. , 93 5 S o. 2d 39 3, 39 8 (M i ss. 2006) ( ci t i ng Stuc ke

y v. Pr ov ide nt

Bank , 912 So. 2d 859, 864 ( M i s s . 2005))
. A m ot i on f or su m m a ry ju d g m e n t “s h a ll” b e g ra n ted b y a c o u rt “ if th e p lea d in g s, d e p o sitio n s, a n sw e rs to in ter ro g a to rie s a n d a d m iss io n s o n file, to g e th e r w ith th e a ffid a v its, if an y , sh o w th a t th e re is

### 4

no genui ne i s s ue as t o a ny mat er i al f acta nd thatthe m ovi ng pa rty i s ent i t l ed t o a j udgm ent
as a mat t e ro f

l a w . ” M i s s . R. Ci v. P. 5 6( c )
. “ Summary j ud gmen ti s man da t e d w he r e t he
r es pondenthas f

ai l ed ‘ t o m ake a s how i ng suf f i ci entt o es t abl i s h the exi s t ence of an el ement
esse n ti al t o that p arty' s ca se, an d o n w h ich that p arty w il l be ar the b u rde n o f pro o f at tri al. ’” Sm it h ex r el . Sm ith v. G il

m or e Mem or ial

Hos p. , I nc. , 952 So. 2d 177, 180 ( M i s s . 2007) ( quot i ng W

il bo u rn v. S ten n ett

, W il kinson & W

ard , 6 8 7 S o . 2 d 1 2 0 5 , 1 2 1 4 (M iss. 1 9 9 6 )). ¶8. T o m ake outa pr i m a f aci e ca s e of

m edi cal m al pr act i ce, the pl ai nti ff h as the bur den of es t abl i s hi ng the f

ol l ow i ng: th e e x iste n c e o f a d u ty o n th e p a rt o f th e p h y sic ian to c o n fo rm to th e sp e c ific sta n d a rd o f co n d u c t, th e ap p lica b le s tan d a rd o f ca re , th e failu re to p e rfo rm to that st and ard, thatthe breach of du ty b y the phy si ci an w as the p roxi m at e cause of the pl ai nt i f

f ' s i nj ury, and thatdamages t o pl ai nt i f f have r es ul t ed. E sta te o f N o rth ro p v. Hu tto , 9 So. 3d 381, 384 ( M i s s . 2009) ( qu ot i ng B arnerv. G orm an , 605 So. 2d 805, 808- 09 ( M i s s . 1992) )
. “ T he gene r al rul e i s thatthe negl i gence of a phys i ci an
m ay be e s t abl i s hed o nly by expertt es t i m ony. ” I d. ( quot i ng P al

m erv. B iloxiR eg'

l Med. Ctr. , 564 So. 2d 1346, 1355 ( M i s s . 1990) )
. A ccor di ngly, in a medi cal
- m al pr act i ce a ct i on, e x p e rtte s tim o n y is g e n e ra lly r e q u ir e d to s u rv iv e s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. Sm ith , 952 So. 2d at 180 ( ci t i ng Sh e

ffie ld v. G o o dw in , 7 4 0 S o . 2 d 8 5 4 , 8 5 6 (M is s . 1 9 9 9 ))
. ¶9. T he d efendan t s ar gu e that s um m ary j ud gm ent i n theirf avo r w as r equ i red i n thi s case becaus e the Tarnabi nes f ai l ed t o pr ovi de any expe rtevi dence , w hetherby af f i davi tor otherw i se. T he C ou rtagrees. ¶10. T he Tarnabi nes w hol l y f ai l t o a ddr es s the def

endant s ’ a r gum entr egar di ng a l ack of experttes t i m ony. R ather , they ar gue thatK ui peri s notent i t l ed t o s um m ary j udgm ent

### 5

becaus e hi s name w as noti ncl ud ed i n t he no t i ce f orthe hea r i ng on the mot i on. T he T arn ab ines m ak e n o a rgu m en t w h atso ev er a s to w h y R iver R eg ion is no t entit led to su m m ary j udgm ent . Speci f

i cal l y, the Tarnabi nes ar gue thatM i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of C i vi l Pr ocedur e 56( c) req u ir es th at no ti ce o f a h ea ri n g o n a m o ti o n for su m m ary jud g m en t be s erv ed ten d ay s b efo re thathe ar i ng, a nd be caus e the not i ce of the hear i ng omi tt ed K ui per ’ s na m e, t he T arnabi nes had no not i ce thatthe mot i on w oul d be hea r d. ¶11. Fi r s t , the T arnabi nes ar e pr ocedur al l y barr ed f r om ra i s i ng t he i s s ue of l ack of not i ce b e c a u s e th e y fa ile d to ra is e it in th e tr ia l c o u rt . He a rn v. Sta te , 3 S o. 3 d 7 22 , 73 9 (M i ss. 2 0 0 8 ) (cit ati o n s o m itted). ¶12. Second, the T arnabi nes m i s r ead Rul e 56( c)
. T he rul e r equi r es that“[ t ] he m ot i on sh a ll be s erved atl eas tt en days bef or e the t i m e f

i xed f orthe hear i ng. ” M i s s . R . C i v. P. 56( c) ( emphasi s added)
. I n s upportof thei rar gum ent , the Tarnabi nes ci t e Jones v. R egency T oyota, I nc. , 798 So. 2d 474 ( M i s s . 2001) and P alm er v. B ilox iR egiona l Medical Cen ter, I nc. , 6 4 9 S o . 2 d 1 7 9 (M iss. 1 9 9 4 ). B o th c a se s inv o lve s itu ati o n s in w h ich s u m m ary j udgm entw as gr ant ed f

ew erthan t en days af

t ert he m ot i on (nott he not i ce of t he hea r i ng) w as serv ed o n the o p p o sing p arty a n d are thu s d ist ing u isha b le f rom th is case
. T h e m o ti o n it self, pr oper l y l i s t i ng K ui peras one of t he par t i es br i ngi ng i t , w as s erved on the Tarnabi nes on S e p tem b e r 2 7 , 2 0 0 7 . A s o n ly o n e m o tio n fo r su m m a ry ju d g m e n t w a s file d in th is c a se , it stra in s c re d ib ili ty fo r th e T a rn a b in e s to arg u e th a t, be c a u se K u ip e r’s n a m e w a s in a d v e rte n tly
om i tt ed f

r om the not i ce, they “c oul d not be e xp ect ed def end D r . K ui per ’ s M ot i on f or S u m m a ry Ju d g m e n t w h e n th e y h a d n o n o tic e th a t th e m o tio n w a s to b e h e a rd .” T h is is part i cul ar l y s o i n thi s cas e, as the Tarnabi nes cl ear l y w er e on not i ce thatthey w oul d be

### 6

r equi r ed t o def

end R i verR egi on’ s m ot i on f ors um m ary j udgm ent , and they f ai l ed t o do s o. T h e T arn ab ines ’ arg u m en t th a t th e y lac k ed n o ti ce that K u iper’s m o ti o n for su m m ary ju d g m e n t w o u ld b e h e a rd a t th e Ja n u a ry 1 0 , 2 0 0 8 , h e a rin g is w ith o u t m e rit. ¶ 1 3 . B e c a u se th e T a rn a b in e s fa iled to p ro v id e a n y e v id e n c e , e x p e rt o r o th e rw ise , in
re sp o n se to th e d e fe n d a n ts’ m o tio n fo r su m m a ry ju d g m e n t, i t w a s e rro r fo r th e trial c o u rt to deny i t . T heref

ore, the tr i al court ’ s or derdenyi ng s um m ary j udgm enti n f avorof the def endant s i s r ever s ed and r ender ed. ¶14. RE VE RS ED AND RE NDE RE D. W A LL ER , C . J. , C A R LSO N , P. J. , R A N D O LP H , LA M A R , K I TC H EN S, CH AND LER AND PI ERCE, J J . , CO NCU R. GR AVES, P. J . , CO NCU RS I N RESULT ONLY .