Opinion ID: 1948428
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Did the circuit court err in granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment?

Text: The plaintiff stated two issues in his complaint: (1) Whether the doctor received the informed consent of the patient for the entire procedure performed and (2) Whether the doctor was negligent in performing the procedures. As discussed previously, expert medical testimony is needed to establish negligence in a malpractice action. Kilpatrick, 461 So.2d at 765. However, no expert testimony is needed to prove what communications transpired between the doctor and the patient. Hammond v. Grissom, 470 So.2d at 1053. Motions for summary judgment are governed by rule 56 of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 56 states in pertinent part, A party against whom a claim, counterclaim, or cross-claim is asserted or a declaratory judgment is sought may, at any time, move with or without supporting affidavits for a summary judgment in his favor as to all or any part thereof. The comments to rule 56 explain, Rule 56 permits any party to a civil action to move for a summary judgment when he believes that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that he is entitled to prevail as a matter of law. The absence of an expert witness to testify that Dr. Wiggins was negligent clearly led to the summary judgment on the negligence question. But what about the question of informed consent? In his affidavit, Dr. Wiggins stated he fully informed the plaintiff of the procedures to be performed and that the plaintiff fully understood them. In contrast, the plaintiff stated in his affidavit that amputation of the entire left index finger was never mentioned to him and that he never consented thereto. Mississippi case law holds, Issues of fact sufficient to require denial of a motion for summary judgment obviously are present where one party swears to one version of the matter in issue and another says just the opposite. Dennis v. Searle, 457 So.2d 941, 944 (Miss. 1984). Those facts are exactly what is presented in the instant case. If there is to be error at the trial level it should be in denying summary judgment and in favor of a full live trial. Brown v. Credit Center, Inc., 444 So.2d 358, 363 (Miss. 1983). Additionally, the plaintiff alleges he did not give an informed consent, although the record shows his signature. This Court is of the opinion that the issuance of the protective order against the plaintiff's taking of the defendant's deposition was in error as well as the granting of summary judgment on these developed facts. The circuit court order is reversed and the cause remanded to the Circuit Court of Jackson County for further proceedings not inconsistent with his opinion. REVERSED AND REMANDED. PATTERSON, C.J., ROY NOBLE LEE, P.J., and HAWKINS, DAN M. LEE, ROBERTSON, SULLIVAN and ANDERSON, JJ., concur. WALKER, P.J., not participating.