Opinion ID: 1860641
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: whether the trial court erred in granting the second motion for summary judgment

Text: ¶ 5. In granting the second motion for summary judgment, the trial court found that Duncan did not have a qualified medical expert to testify as to the standard of care owed by RMC. It was not until July 2000, when Duncan supplemented discovery requests, that it became apparent that Duncan did not have a medical expert to support her claim against RMC. Duncan produced a December 1, 1997, letter from Dr. Barbara J. Abrams to Duncan's attorney which stated an opinion against Dr. Chouteau only and not against RMC, although the testimony was artfully drawn in an affidavit to get by the first summary judgment. ¶ 6. By her own admission, Dr. Abrams was not a suitable expert to testify as to independent nursing negligence on the part of RMC. She averred in her December 1, 1997, letter that [c]omments regarding the negligence of the hospital itself and the Pearl Police Department would not be within my area of expertise... Thus, I can not (sic) attribute any specific acts of negligence on the part of the hospital itself. She stated in a subsequent clarification letter, I am not stating that the hospital is not negligent. What I am stating is that as an expert in Emergency Medicine, commenting on other issues (i.e. such as nursing documentation) would not necessarily be considered my area of expertise. Even though the statements in the December 1, 1997, letter could possibly permit Dr. Abrams to testify under the layman's exception as to such issues as RMC violating its own policies, there are still issues to which a medical expert in the appropriate field of expertise would have to testify, namely, the standards of care. See Sheffield v. Goodwin, 740 So.2d 854, 856 (Miss.1999); Coleman v. Rice, 706 So.2d 696, 698 (Miss.1997). ¶ 7. Duncan was able to disguise Dr. Abrams as a proper medical expert on the claims against RMC by concealing the December 1, 1997, letter for over three years. Had the letter been disclosed earlier, the fact that Dr. Abrams was not an expert in the required field would have been brought to light and, conceivably, at such an early stage in the litigation, Duncan could have retained a suitable expert. Even through oral arguments before this Court Duncan gave no explanation as to why a medical expert was never obtained to support the nursing negligence issues. ¶ 8. In an effort to thwart summary judgment again, Duncan designated two registered nurses as experts, John Kocke (Kocke) and Rebecca Bankston (Bankston), and produced their affidavits five weeks before trial. The trial court granted RMC's motions to strike the affidavits and designations holding they were not timely filed in accordance with our discovery rules since RMC had requested designation of experts via discovery three years earlier. Duncan was left with no medical expert to testify as to RMC's negligence after the expert affidavits and designations were stricken. ¶ 9. The designation of the two registered nurses, five weeks before trial is also unacceptable, not necessarily because of the proximity to trial, but because Duncan had known since the lawsuit was filed in 1997 that a medical expert would be needed for the claims asserted against the hospital. Also, she never argued in opposition to summary judgment or elsewhere that the layman's exception applied. Duncan's violations of our discovery rules ultimately led to summary judgment in favor of RMC. ¶ 10. We review rulings on discovery violations for abuse of discretion. See Gray v. State, 799 So.2d 53, 60 (Miss. 2001) (citing Paulk v. Housing Auth., 228 So.2d 871, 873 (Miss.1969)). Further, discovery responses are to be supplemented seasonably pursuant to Rule 26(f) of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure. We have held that [s]easonably does not mean several months later. It means immediately. West v. Sanders Clinic for Women, P.A., 661 So.2d 714, 721 (Miss. 1995). Additionally, seasonableness must be determined on a case by case basis looking at the totality of the circumstances surrounding the supplemental information the offering party seeks to admit. Blanton v. Board of Supervisors, 720 So.2d 190, 195 (Miss.1998). Even though the need for a medical expert regarding the alleged hospital negligence is questionable, Duncan failed to show any negligence on RMC's part. The stricken affidavits did not establish negligence either. The fact is that Dr. Chouteau and the radiologist on duty gave a preliminary diagnosis of Smith's injuries, took x-rays and were looking for a ruptured aorta, the very injury for which Duncan claims the nurses were not looking. All parties agreed that if Smith's aorta had been ruptured, immediate attention would have been necessitated, and there is very little, if anything, one can do after a rupture. ¶ 11. The judge was correct in his discovery ruling, and we cannot reverse a trial judge in granting summary judgment, even on the merits of the case the second time around, since no negligence was shown on the part of the hospital. Even if the affidavits were allowed, the negligence assigned had already been provisionally diagnosed as the doctors were looking for a possible injured aorta. ¶ 12. We find the production of the December 1, 1997, letter three years after discovery had been propounded and the subsequent designation of experts in response to the motion for summary judgment were gross violations of our discovery rules. Therefore, we find no abuse of discretion was committed in the rulings on said matters and no error in the resulting grant of summary judgment.