Tag Archives: medical malpractice

Posted on by

One ground upon which a lawsuit may be dimissed is that of forum non conveniens.  A defendant may present arguments that the venue in which the lawsuit was filed is improper due to lack of access to witnesses and evidence.  In determining whether to grant a motion to dismiss an action or to transfer venue under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, the court shall give consideration to the following factors:

(i) Relative ease of access to sources of proof;

(ii) Availability and cost of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling witnesses;

(iii) Possibility of viewing of the premises, if viewing would be appropriate to the action;

(iv) Unnecessary expense or trouble to the defendant not necessary to the plaintiff’s own right to pursue his remedy;

(v) Administrative difficulties for the forum courts;

(vi) Existence of local interests in deciding the case at home; and

(vii) The traditional deference given to a plaintiff’s choice of forum. Alston v. Pope, 112 So.3d 422 (Miss. 2013)    Miss.Code Ann. § 11-11-3(4)(a) (Rev.2004).

 

Posted on by

Before initiating medical malpractice litigation, the attorney should give the treating physician’s insurance carrier an opportunity to settle.  The attorney will prepare what is commonly referred to as a demand package (also referred to as a settlement package, demand, or demand letter).

The demand package consists of a written brief that includes (i) a concise statement of when and how the malpractice occurred; (ii) a thorough explanation of the theory of how the other party was negligent (specifically addressing any weaknesses); and (iii) a summary of damages (e.g. related injuries, prior related medical bills associated with those injuries, pain and suffering, cost estimate of necessary and related future medical care); and (iv) the settlement amount demanded.

Attached to the demand packet, the following exhibits should be included:

(a) medical reports; (b)  photos of disfigurement; (c) photos of the client (before the injury, during treatment, and after treatment has completed); (d) medical records (including doctor’s notes and diagnostic imaging results); (e) witness statements; (f) pay stubs / income tax returns, if making a lost-wages claim; and (g) the appropriate jury instructions (that would apply if a lawsuit were to be filed).

A well prepared demand packet brief will also cite case law and their application to the facts

 

Posted on by

 The use of expert medical testimony is necessary to prove medical negligence.  However some case law stands for the proposition that expert testimony is necessary unless “a layman can observe and understand the negligence as a matter of common sense and practical experience.” Gatlin v. Methodist Medical Center, 772 So. 2d 1023, 1026 (Miss. 2000); Coleman v. Rice, 706 So. 2d 696, 698 (Miss. 1997). The Mississippi Supreme Court held in 2005 that expert testimony is necessary to prove lack of informed consent, in order to establish the material risks and available alternatives that should have been disclosed. Whittington v. Mason, 905 So. 2d 1261 (Miss. 2005). To qualify as an expert witness, a physician must be licensed in Mississippi or some other state. Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-61.

A plaintiff in a medical malpractice action must file with the complaint a certificate executed by his attorney declaring that the attorney has consulted with at least one qualified and knowledgeable expert and concluded that there is a reasonable basis for the action or that three good-faith attempts were made to contact an experts and none would agree to a consultation. 

Posted on by

 In Mississippi, a defendant tortfeasor (or wrongdoer) can not have damages reduced by reason of amounts that plaintiff receives from independent sources like insurance, workers’ compensation, or Medicaid. Walmart Stores, Inc. v. Frierson, 818 So. 2d 1135 (Miss. 2002); Brandon HMA, Inc. v. Bradshaw, 809 So. 2d 611 (Miss. 2001) (a medical malpractice case).  This in known as the collateral source rule.  Both those decisions upheld verdicts in trials in which plaintiffs were allowed to prove medical damages by introducing the full face amount of the bills issued by health care providers, even though these exceeded the amounts Medicaid and Medicare actually paid, and plaintiffs were not responsible for the excess. 

Posted on by

Miss. Code Ann. § 75-17-7 gives judges in Mississippi discretion to assess pre-judgment interest. The judge has discretion to establish the rate and when the date interest begins to accrue.  However, the starting date cannot be earlier than the date of filing.  The Supreme Court has held that no award of pre-judgment interest is allowed if the amount owed is unliquidated prior to judgment, which should always be true in medical malpractice cases. Coho Resources, Inc. v. McCarthy, 829 So. 2d 1 (Miss. 2002) (a personal injury case); Warwick v. Matheney, 603 So. 2d 330 (Miss. 1992). 

Posted on by

Damages in Mississippi have a cap of $500,000 on non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases. Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-60. The Mississippi Supreme Court has yet to rule on the constitutionality of this statute. The effective date of the cap remains uncertain. Much of the 2002 tort reform act is applicable to actions filed on or after January 1, 2003, but the section establishing the cap indicates that it applies to actions filed on or after passage of the bill, which was approved October 8, 2002. Id. The limited authority available supports the earlier effective date. The cases of Buchanon v. Mariner Health Care Management Co., No. Civ.A. 303CV302WS, 2006 WL 1195579 (S.D. Miss. April 28, 2006); Bowen v. South Coast Family Physicians, PLLC, No. C102-00508(1), 2006 WL 2945591 (Miss. Cir. May 26, 2006) seem to support the proposition that actions filed on or before October 8, 2002 are applicable to caps.

Prior to the law change, the definition of non-economic damages excluded damages for “disfigurement,” but this exception was removed through an amendment applicable to actions filed on or after September 1, 2004. The amendment clarified that the cap applies to an entire claim, not separately for each defendant. § 11-1-60. Punitive damages are limited to two percent of net worth in cases filed on or after September 1, 2004, . (There is a schedule of lower limits for defendants worth more than $50 million.) Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-65 

Posted on by

 Before the elimination of joint and several liability, joint tortfeasors or wrongdoers were afforded a right of contribution, with the amount of each tortfeasor’s liability in contribution determined by the tortfeasors’ relative degrees of fault. A right of contribution still exists for those whose liability is joint and several because they took part in a common plan to commit a tortious act. Miss. Code Ann. § 85-5-7(4) 

Posted on by

In a joint and several liability Mississippi civil action action based on fault, including a medical malpractice action, each tortfeasor or wrongdoer is liable only for damages allocated to them in direct proportion to their percentage of fault. Miss. Code Ann. § 85-5-7 (Westlaw 2007). Fault must be assigned to absent tortfeasors who contributed to the injury (such as persons who have settled or were not sued) and those with immunity. Id.; Blailock v. Hubbs, 919 So. 2d 126 (Miss. 2005).  This rule does not apply to acts committed with specific wrongful intent or as part of a common plan to commit a tortious act. § 85-5-7(1) and (4).

Posted on by

Hospitals are not typically liable for the negligent acts of independent contractor physicians in Mississippi. A hospital that holds itself out as providing a service, and where the patient engages the hospital’s service without regard to the physician’s identity, aligns the hospital for vicarious liability. A hospital held vicariously liable is entitled to indemnity from the negligent physician.