Opinion ID: 1680246
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: whether the wellses' action against jefferson county hospital was premised on a reasonable claim of liability thus making venue proper in jefferson county

Text: ¶ 11. Today's interlocutory appeal requires us to determine the viability of the claim asserted against Jefferson County Hospital, the defendant through whom venue has been established. Moreover, since the defendants, Dr. Austin and Vicksburg Healthcare, premise their motion for a change of venue on the assertion that JCH was made a party to this suit for the sole purpose of establishing venue in Jefferson County, we must test the factual basis on which the Wellses predicate their suit against JCH. Quite simply, we have to determine whether JCH was fraudulently joined as a nominal party to the suit in order to gain access to the circuit court in Jefferson County. ¶ 12. The substance of Mrs. Wells's claim against JCH relies on a causal connection between the hospital's alleged failure to perform an arterial blood gas and the three extra days of pain Mrs. Wells endured between her visit to JCH and St. Dominic. Mrs. Wells supports her complaint against JCH with an affidavit supplied by Lisa P. Otey, M.D., which states: The records from the Jefferson County Emergency Room staff revealed that Mrs. Wells was evaluated February 11, 2002, for the primary complaint can't breathe. She had a documented increase of her respiration rate at 26 breaths per minute. Since she was within eight weeks of her postoperative care, pulmonary embolism (a life-threatening condition in which a clot(s) break(s) away and obstructs the pulmonary arteries) should have been a consideration. The minimum work up therefore should have included an arterial blood gas. This test was not performed and therefore breached the standard of care for patients presenting in this way. Based on this analysis, Mrs. Wells contends that if JCH had hospitalized her and performed the test for pulmonary embolus, it might have discovered the existence of an infected hematoma and an ovarian vein thrombosis, which were the cause for her continued pain. Moreover, Mrs. Wells maintains that since she was not hospitalized on February 11, 2002, negating the possibility to run the battery of tests, she had three additional days of suffering before going to St. Dominic. Conversely, the defendants argue that Dr. Otey's analysis of Mrs. Wells's emergency room visit to JCH fails to establish causation and damages, and thus fails to establish a reasonable claim against the hospital. The defendants opine that the alleged negligence related to JCH's determination not to perform a test designed to discover a pulmonary embolus can in no way be causally linked to the abdominal pain or femoral nerve damage on which Mrs. Wells bases her claim for damages. Ultimately, the defendants assert that since there is no reasonable claim against JCH, venue in Jefferson County is improper. We agree. ¶ 13. In Myers v. Vinson, 212 Miss. 85, 89, 54 So.2d 168, 169 (1951), we outlined the requisites for properly establishing venue in a suit where multiple defendants have been named and stated [u]nquestionably the general rule is that where there are two or more defendants to a transitory cause of action whose venue is fixed by statute in either of two or more counties, the plaintiff or complainant may elect to bring the suit in either county, provided the defendant in the county where the suit is brought is a material party and there is a valid cause of action against him and he is not fraudulently joined for the purpose of fixing venue. Myers, 212 Miss. at 89, 54 So.2d at 169 (citing Miss. Power & Light Co. v. Lowe, 179 Miss. 377, 175 So. 196 (1937); Daniel v. Livingstone, 168 Miss. 311, 150 So. 662 (1933); Indianola Cotton Oil Co. v. Crowley, 121 Miss. 262, 83 So. 409 (1920)). The logic behind our general rule is quite practical when one considers its purpose is to prevent a plaintiff from fraudulently manipulating the legal advantages created by joinder and forum selection when instituting a suit. Moreover, it is certainly appropriate that a plaintiff be required to clearly evidence that a party against whom there exists a valid claim has been properly included when determining the venue in which a defendant will be required to defend himself. ¶ 14. In recent years this Court has fleshed out the general rule stated in Myers, and while the test now includes additional subjective elements of intent, the essential feature to the viability of an action on which venue relies is still based on the validity of the plaintiff's asserted cause of action. In Wayne General Hosp. v. Hayes, 868 So.2d 997, 1002 (Miss.2004), we stated our current test and focused on the necessity of undertaking an objective factual review of the elements comprising the forum-fixing claim: Where an action is properly brought in a county in which one of the defendants resides, it may be retained notwithstanding there is a dismissal of the resident defendant, provided the following exists[1] the action was begun in good faith in the bona fide belief that plaintiff had a cause of action against the resident defendant; [2] the joinder of the local defendant was not fraudulent or frivolous, with the intention of depriving the non-resident defendant of his right to be sued in his own county; [3] and there was a reasonable claim of liability asserted against the resident defendant. Estate of Jones, 716 So.2d at 627 (citing New Biloxi Hosp., Inc. v. Frazier, 245 Miss. 185, 146 So.2d 882, 885 (1962)). When determining whether fraud was involved in the joining of defendants the proper question is not whether the plaintiff's attorney intended to fraudulently establish venue, but whether the facts support inclusion of the defendant upon whom venue is based. Estate of Jones, 716 So.2d at 628 (citing Jefferson v. Magee, 205 So.2d 281, 283 (Miss. 1967)). Wayne Gen. Hosp., 868 So.2d at 1002 (emphasis added). ¶ 15. In Wayne General Hospital, a case involving several different care providers from different counties, we undertook review of a medical malpractice suit in which venue was based on the inclusion of the University of Mississippi Medical Center (UMMC) as a defendant. Specifically, we examined the forum-fixing claim brought against UMMC and, in so doing, outlined the basic elements necessary to properly establish a valid medical malpractice claim: In order to prevail in a medical malpractice action, a plaintiff must establish, by expert testimony, the standard of acceptable professional practice; that the defendant physician deviated from that standard; and that the deviation from the standard of acceptable professional practice was the proximate cause of the injury of which plaintiff complains. Brown v. Baptist Mem'l Hosp. DeSoto, Inc., 806 So.2d 1131, 1134 (Miss.2002) (citing Phillips ex rel. Phillips v. Hull, 516 So.2d 488, 491 (Miss.1987)). See also Palmer v. Biloxi Reg'l Med. Ctr., Inc., 564 So.2d 1346, 1355 (Miss.1990). Id. at 1002-03. In determining that the plaintiffs' voluntary dismissal of the forum-fixing party precluded their suit from remaining in Hinds County, we reasoned that [i]f the plaintiff's claims could not survive a motion for summary judgment. . . then they clearly failed to assert a reasonable claim of liability against the UMMC Defendants. Id. at 1003. ¶ 16. In today's case, this Court is presented with a medical malpractice claim which names multiple parties and connects them to a single injury through a series of occurrences of alleged negligence. For purposes of determining venue, we must isolate the venue-fixing claim and distinguish its substance and validity. Moreover, just as we did in Wayne General Hospital, we must determine whether the claim brought against the forum-fixing party is legally valid and whether the Wellses produced sufficient factual evidence in the form of expert testimony to establish the reasonableness of their venue-fixing claim against JCH. In contrast to Wayne General Hospital, we can not assume the Wellses claim was unreasonable and ripe for summary judgment as their claim against JCH was settled instead of voluntarily dismissed. Thus, we look to the factual basis offered in support of the Wellses claim. ¶ 17. In order to establish a reasonable claim against JCH and properly maintain venue in Jefferson County, the Wellses must establish a standard of care owed to Mrs. Wells by JCH, a deviation from that standard of care, and some logical proximate causal relationship between JCH's deviation and the injury on which Mrs. Wells bases her complaint. While the first two of these elements can be extracted from Dr. Lisa Otey's expert testimony, the basis of these elements has no causal connection to Mrs. Wells's injury. Moreover, Mrs. Wells's claim for damages against JCH depends on the hospital's failure to perform a test designed to discover an affliction from which Mrs. Wells did not suffer. ¶ 18. The causal connection offered by the Wellses in support of their malpractice claim against JCH is tenuous at best. Moreover, the only act of negligence offered by their expert witness is completely premised on the necessity of the JCH staff ordering an arteriogram/ arterial blood gas. Importantly, such a test is performed when there are present symptoms indicating that one is afflicted with a pulmonary embolus. Interestingly, no such symptoms were recorded. At the motion hearing of December 8, 2003, the defendants' expert testimony of Dr. Frederick Barnett Carlton, Jr., revealed: Q: Dr. Carlton, what were the symptoms thatthat this patient expressed when she came in the emergency room? A: The initial complaints as taken down by the nurse was (sic) that she had chronic recurrent sinusitis and had nasal congestion, and that was with pharyngeal irritation; in other words, a sore throat. The chief complaint when she presented was can't breathe. The addendum that we've been talking about addresses the other matters ofI already mentioned the nasal congestion. That's where the comment about not being able to breathe at night is addressed. And the other complaints that weren't specifically addressed on the first page arein addition to the nasal congestion are stuffiness and a runny nose. ¶ 19. A major symptom that might have led the staff at JCH to perform an arterial blood gas is abdominal pain. In Dr. Otey's deposition, we learn that this important symptom was never recorded: Q. Let me ask you to turn to that entry where she was in the Jefferson County emergency room on February 11, 2002. A. Okay. Q. And there's no complaint there that anybody recorded she [Mrs. Wells] had any abdominal pain that day? A. No. . . . Q . . . . neither Dr. Bills or the people at the Jefferson County Hospital A. Documented. Q. documented it [abdominal pain], did they? A. No, they did not document it. ¶ 20. Even if it could be shown that the doctors in the ER at JCH deviated from the standard of care common to Mrs. Wells's symptoms by not recognizing the need to test Mrs. Wells for a pulmonary embolus, their failure to test can not give rise to a reasonable claim of liability inasmuch as Mrs. Wells never suffered from a pulmonary embolus. We learn through the Wellses own expert that an arteriogram/ arterial blood gas is a test designated for the purpose of discovering a pulmonary embolusa life threatening condition which Mrs. Wells most certainly did not have. Additionally, the Wellses expert, Dr. Otey, admitted that there was nothing that JCH could have done to relieve Mrs. Wells's pain: Q. Well, we've established that her pain only subsided after she had the adhesions lysed and the thrombus taken out? R. Okay. Q. So you didn't expect the Jefferson County Hospital emergency room to do that surgery that night, did you? A. No. . . . Q. . . . But you would have not expected the Jefferson County Hospital to have performed any surgery on her to alleviate thatthat alleged [lower right quadrant] pain, abdominal pain, would you? A. No. Q. In fact, even assuming that she did make that complaint, she already hadshe already had this abdominal complaint before she went there, didn't she? A. Yes. Q. And she continued having it several months later? A. Yes. Q. So there's nothing that the Jefferson County Hospital could do or their nurses to alleviate that pain that night, was there? A. Just givenot the pain, but they can have a higher suspicion of working her up for a pulmonary embolus. Q. Other than that? A. Other than that, no sir. Q. There was no other negligence that you know of that the Jefferson County Hospital or nurses did? A. No. SheNo. . . . Q. And the only thing that Jefferson County Hospital did, according to what I understand from you, is did not test her for a pulmonary embolus? A. That's all. Q. Which didn't materialize? A. Correct. ¶ 21. The facts of the Wellses claim, as revealed by their expert's testimony, fail to support a sufficient causal connection between JCH's alleged negligent treatment of Mrs. Wells and the affliction upon which her claim is basedan infected hematoma and an ovarian thrombosis. Moreover, the Wellses have not advanced a reasonable claim of liability against JCH as JCH's failure to perform an arterial blood gas in an attempt to test if Mrs. Wells had a pulmonary embolus did not cause the pain Mrs. Wells suffered from before, during or after her visit to JCHpain stemming from her hysterectomy performed on November 19, 2001, at the Parkview Regional Medical Center. Because the Wellses failed to establish a proper factual basis to support a reasonable claim of liability against JCH, we find that venue in Jefferson County is improper. Thus, the Wellses have failed to satisfy the third prong of the Frazier test that there was a reasonable claim of liability asserted against the resident defendant, Jefferson County Hospital. Frazier, 146 So.2d at 885; see also Wayne Gen. Hosp., 868 So.2d at 1002-03. The only remaining defendants in this lawsuit are Dr. Austin and Vicksburg HealthCare, both Warren County residents. All remaining claims of negligence by these defendants occurred in Warren County. The trial court erred in denying the defendants' motion to transfer venue from Jefferson County to Warren County. Miss. Code Ann. §§ 11-11-3, -17.