Opinion ID: 2824290
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: analysis

Text: ¶8. Memorial Hospital presents four issues on appeal: I. Whether the trial court erred in not excluding the testimony of Drs. Barrilleaux and Millette at trial. II. Whether the trial court erred by denying the Memorial Hospital’s posttrial Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Mississippi Rule Civil Procedure 41(b), notwithstanding that White’s medical experts’ opinions on causation were at odds with medical literature and based solely on personal experience. 3 III. Whether the trial court’s Opinion and Judgment and Final Judgment was against the substantial, credible, and reasonable evidence on the issue of medical causation. IV. Whether the trial court erred in denying the Memorial Hospital’s posttrial motions to Alter or Amend Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law and Judgment, to Alter or Amend Judgment, or alternatively, for a New Trial. ¶9. The substance of each claim of error presents the same basic question: whether medical experts must provide medical literature or peer-reviewed studies to support the opinions they provide. Essentially, Memorial argues that either the trial judge erred by failing to exclude White’s expert testimony because the experts failed to provide medical literature with their reports or that White failed to prove causation for the same reason. We disagree. ¶10. To prevail in a medical-malpractice case, the plaintiff must prove (1) that there was “a duty by the defendant to conform to a specific standard of conduct for the protection of others against an unreasonable risk of injury; (2) a failure to conform to the required standard; and (3) an injury to the plaintiff proximately caused by the breach of such duty by the defendant.”1 To prove “these elements in a medical malpractice suit, expert testimony must be used,”2 and the expert must articulate and identify the standard of care that was breached and establish that the breach “was the proximate cause, or proximate contributing 1 Hubbard v. Wansley, 954 So. 2d 951, 956-57 (Miss. 2007) (citing Drummond v. Buckley, 627 So. 2d 264, 268 (Miss. 1993)). 2 Hubbard, 954 So. 2d at 957. 4 cause, of the alleged injuries.”3 “Our well-settled standard of review for the admission or suppression of evidence is abuse of discretion.”4 “[T]he admission of expert testimony is within the sound discretion of the trial judge.”5 And we will not reverse a trial court based on an erroneous evidentiary ruling “unless a substantial right of the party is affected.”6 ¶11. Mississippi law recognizes the legal theory of the “loss of a chance,” which White utilized in this case.7 To recover under this theory, the plaintiff must prove that, but for the physician’s negligence,8 he or she had a reasonable probability of a substantial improvement. A plaintiff cannot recover by showing a mere possibility of a “chance of recovery.”9 Stated another way, the plaintiff must offer proof of “a greater than fifty (50) percent chance of a better result than was in fact obtained.”10 3 Id. (citing Barner v. Gorman, 605 So. 2d 805, 809 (Miss. 1992)). 4 Miss. Transp. Comm’n v. McLemore, 863 So. 2d 31, 34 (Miss. 2003) (citing Haggerty v. Foster, 838 So. 2d 948, 958 (Miss. 2002)). 5 McLemore, 863 So. 2d at 34 (citing Puckett v. State, 737 So. 2d 322, 342 (Miss. 1999)). 6 Miss. R. Evid. 103(a). 7 Clayton v. Thompson, 475 So. 2d 439, 445 (Miss. 1985). 8 Id. 9 Id. 10 Hubbard, 954 So. 2d at 964 (quoting Ladner v. Campbell, 515 So. 2d 882, 889 (Miss. 1987)). 5 ¶12. White’s experts provided the testimony necessary to satisfy these standards. Memorial does not challenge that fact but argues instead that the experts did not provide medical literature that confirms their testimony. But, under our precedent, medical experts are not required to support their opinions with medical literature.11 We did state in Hill v. Mills12 that “when an expert (no matter how qualified) renders an opinion that is attacked as not accepted within the scientific community, the party offering that expert’s opinion must, at a minimum, present the trial judge with some evidence indicating that the offered opinion has some degree of acceptance in the scientific community.”13 But we made it clear that we were not creating a requirement that an expert’s opinion be supported by peer-reviewed literature.14 Indeed, we stated that we were not retreating from our ruling in Poole, where we held that peer-reviewed literature and publications are not absolutely required, and their absence does not constitute automatic inadmissibility.15 ¶13. Here, Memorial did not challenge the opinions of White’s experts as contrary to the scientific community. And it did not present medical literature that contradicted the opinions of White’s experts. Rather, this case presents nothing more than a classic example of a 11 Poole v. Avara, 908 So. 2d 716, 724 (Miss. 2005). 12 Hill v. Mills, 26 So. 3d 322 (Miss. 2010). 13 Id. at 331 (emphasis added). 14 Id. at 332. 15 Id. (citing Poole, 908 So. 2d at 724). 6 “battle of the experts.”16 White presented experts who supported a reasonable probability of a substantially better outcome, whereas Memorial offered expert testimony that supported only a potential chance of a substantially better outcome. And as we consistently have held, the fact-finder—in this case, the trial judge—determines the winner of a battle of experts.17