Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

A woman experienced a difficult third pregnancy, complicated by multiple medical issues that warranted an early, medically induced labor. Before delivery, she signed a consent form authorizing her obstetrician to perform a vaginal delivery with possible laceration/episiotomy repairs and possible cesarean section. During labor, as the infant was crowning, she pleaded with her doctor not to perform an episiotomy, but the procedure was carried out. She later required reconstructive surgery due to complications from the episiotomy.She initiated legal action in the Hinds County Circuit Court against her obstetrician, the medical group, and other entities, alleging lack of informed consent and battery related to the episiotomy, along with other claims against additional defendants. Over time, the trial court issued a series of orders dismissing various claims and defendants, culminating in summary judgment for the obstetrician on the informed consent and battery claims, primarily due to the plaintiff’s failure to provide expert medical testimony. The plaintiff argued that expert testimony was unnecessary because she had withdrawn consent during labor, but the court disagreed.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case. It held that while a medical procedure performed without consent may constitute battery and not require expert testimony, this scenario involved consent given prior to delivery and alleged withdrawal during labor. In such cases, it is necessary to prove that stopping the procedure was medically feasible and would not cause harm, which requires expert testimony. The Court affirmed the trial court’s summary judgment, finding that the plaintiff’s lack of expert evidence prevented her claims from proceeding, and upheld the trial court’s denial of reconsideration. View "Brown v. Davey-Sullivan" on Justia Law

A patient sought treatment at a state medical center for vision issues and was diagnosed with idiopathic intracranial hypertension. She initially chose medication over surgery but later agreed to undergo an optic-nerve sheath fenestration. Following continued vision decline, she received a shunt placement. Shortly after this procedure, she and her mother discussed concerns about her treatment, expressing suspicions that something had gone wrong and that she should seek care elsewhere. The patient continued follow-up visits at the center, but months later obtained a second medical opinion, which suggested prior care had been incorrect and provided an alternative diagnosis.The patient filed a notice of claim against the medical center more than a year after her suspicions of negligence but within a year of receiving the second opinion. She then filed suit for medical negligence. The University of Mississippi Medical Center moved for summary judgment in the Hinds County Circuit Court, arguing the claim was time barred under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act’s one-year statute of limitations. The trial court denied the motion, finding a genuine issue as to when the patient discovered the alleged negligence.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the denial of summary judgment de novo. It held that the statute of limitations began running when the patient first suspected negligent care, as shown by her own statements and those of her mother shortly after the shunt procedure, not when she received the second opinion. The court found no genuine issue of material fact that her suspicions triggered the limitations period, making her claim time barred. The court reversed the trial court’s decision and rendered summary judgment in favor of the medical center. View "University of Mississippi Medical Center v. Carter" on Justia Law

Mary Margaret Upchurch, who suffered from chronic back pain, underwent multiple surgeries involving spinal cord stimulators and pain pumps. In 2016, after moving to Mississippi, she had a pain pump replaced by Dr. Adam Lewis, a neurosurgeon at Jackson Neurosurgery Clinic. During surgery, Dr. Lewis attempted to replace the battery of her spinal cord stimulator with one from a different manufacturer, but encountered issues with the compatibility of the leads. This led to additional procedures, including a laminectomy and the eventual replacement of the stimulator, after which Mary experienced severe neurological complications, including paralysis. The Upchurches alleged that Dr. Lewis failed to properly prepare for surgery, did not obtain informed consent, and failed to communicate adequately with hospital staff.The case was tried in the Rankin County Circuit Court, where the jury found in favor of Dr. Lewis and Jackson Neurosurgery Clinic, concluding there was no negligence in Dr. Lewis’s care. The circuit court entered judgment on the jury’s verdict and denied the Upchurches’ motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial. The Upchurches appealed, and the Mississippi Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court’s judgment, finding insufficient evidence supported the jury’s verdict and remanding the case for a new trial.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case on certiorari. It held that the Upchurches’ failure to object to Dr. Lewis’s testimony at trial constituted waiver, and that his unobjected-to testimony should have been considered as evidence. The Court found sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict, reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision, and reinstated and affirmed the circuit court’s judgment in favor of Dr. Lewis and Jackson Neurosurgery Clinic. Additionally, the Court affirmed the circuit court’s order assessing appellate record costs against Dr. Lewis and the Clinic. View "Upchurch v. Lewis" on Justia Law

An employee of an industrial-construction company purchased a truck from his employer through paycheck deductions while residing at a rehabilitation center. The employee was terminated for suspected theft and, upon his firing, received a notarized title to the truck and his final paycheck, which completed the purchase. About a month later, while still driving the truck—which remained titled, licensed, and insured in the company’s name—he was involved in an accident that resulted in the death of another motorist. The deceased’s representative brought a wrongful death suit against both the former employee and the company, alleging the company was liable under theories of negligent entrustment and respondeat superior.The Circuit Court of Claiborne County granted summary judgment to the company on the respondeat superior claim, finding no employment relationship at the time of the accident. However, the court denied summary judgment on the negligent entrustment claim, finding issues of material fact regarding whether the company had control over the truck, whether title had properly transferred, and whether the company should have known about the employee’s alleged substance abuse.The Supreme Court of Mississippi granted interlocutory appeal and reviewed the denial of summary judgment on the negligent entrustment claim. The court held that for negligent entrustment, a plaintiff must show the supplier had control of the vehicle, knew or should have known of an unreasonable risk, and that this risk directly caused the harm. The court found insufficient evidence that the company knew or should have known of the employee’s substance abuse, that the company retained control over the truck after sale, or that substance abuse caused the accident. The Supreme Court of Mississippi reversed the circuit court’s decision and remanded with instructions to grant summary judgment for the company on negligent entrustment. View "Rig Masters, Inc. v. Colenberg" on Justia Law

An employee was injured at his workplace by a forklift operated by someone he believed worked for his employer, but later learned was employed by a staffing agency. Shortly after the accident, he filed a workers’ compensation claim and entered Chapter 13 bankruptcy, disclosing only the workers’ compensation claim and not any potential third-party claim related to the injury. The bankruptcy case was eventually dismissed without discharge. Over a year after the dismissal, the injured employee initiated a personal injury lawsuit against the staffing agency and the forklift operator in state court.The Circuit Court of DeSoto County granted summary judgment to the staffing agency, finding that the plaintiff was judicially estopped from pursuing the personal injury claim because he failed to disclose it during bankruptcy proceedings. The court found all elements of judicial estoppel satisfied, including the court’s acceptance of the plaintiff’s prior position. The Mississippi Court of Appeals reversed this decision, relying on federal precedent from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, specifically Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Oparaji (In re Oparaji), which holds that dismissal of a bankruptcy case without discharge revokes the bankruptcy court’s acceptance of any inconsistent position.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case on certiorari. The Court held that the Court of Appeals correctly applied the law and followed Fifth Circuit precedent. The Supreme Court determined that dismissal without discharge returns the parties to their pre-bankruptcy positions, revoking any judicial acceptance of the plaintiff’s representations. Therefore, the acceptance element of judicial estoppel was not met, and the plaintiff is not barred from pursuing his personal injury claim. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ judgment, reversed the Circuit Court’s summary judgment, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Strong v. Acara Solutions, Inc." on Justia Law

Michael Pryor contracted with a transportation company to deliver cargo in July 2019. After the shipment was rejected by the receiver in Pennsylvania, Pryor returned it to Mississippi at the company’s request. Initially, Pryor was told he would be compensated for the return, but later the company refused to pay. When Pryor asserted a carrier lien on the cargo, the company reported him to local police for theft, leading to criminal charges for felony embezzlement. The charges were eventually “retired to file” in August 2021 and expunged in August 2022. Pryor alleged that the company’s actions caused him emotional distress, humiliation, and economic loss, including heart palpitations diagnosed in November 2021.Pryor first filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi in June 2023, seeking damages for malicious prosecution and emotional distress. The federal court dismissed his case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. In July 2024, Pryor refiled his claims in the Circuit Court of Pontotoc County. The company moved for summary judgment, arguing that the statute of limitations barred both claims. The Circuit Court granted summary judgment, finding Pryor’s claims untimely.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the Circuit Court’s decision de novo. It held that the three-year statute of limitations for emotional distress claims began running when Pryor knew of his injuries, which was well before the doctor’s appointment he cited. The one-year statute of limitations for malicious prosecution began when the criminal charges were retired to file, not when they were expunged. As both claims were filed after the relevant limitations periods had expired, the Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of the company. View "Pryor v. J. B. Hunt Transport, Inc." on Justia Law

Monica Sparrow accompanied her daughter to a hospital appointment during the COVID-19 pandemic, when special entry and exit procedures were in place. After her daughter’s appointment, Sparrow was instructed by a nurse to exit the hospital through an employee parking garage to retrieve her car. While leaving through this route, which she was unfamiliar with, Sparrow slipped on a wet, partially concealed, and allegedly slick drainage grate that shifted under her weight. Sparrow sustained a serious knee injury requiring surgery. She claimed that the hospital required her to use an unreasonably dangerous route and failed to warn her of its dangers.The case was first heard in the Lauderdale County Circuit Court. Rush Health Systems, the hospital operator, moved for summary judgment, arguing that the drainage grate was an obvious, non-dangerous condition and that Sparrow was a licensee to whom limited duties were owed. The hospital contended that the grate's presence and condition were not unreasonably dangerous and that Sparrow was at fault for not watching where she was walking. Sparrow presented evidence, including her own and expert testimony, suggesting the grate was slick, poorly lit, shifted under weight, and that she was directed by hospital staff to use that exit. The trial court denied summary judgment, finding that genuine factual disputes remained as to whether the condition was dangerous and whether Sparrow was an invitee or licensee.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the denial of summary judgment de novo. The Court held that Sparrow had presented sufficient evidence to create genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the drainage grate constituted a dangerous condition and her status as an invitee or licensee at the time of her fall. The Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed the trial court’s denial of summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Rush Health Systems, Inc. v. Sparrow" on Justia Law

After Paula Denison was declared dead at a hospital in Meridian, Mississippi, her family consented to organ donation. She was transferred to a transplant facility, where it was later discovered that she was actually alive. Denison was then returned to the original hospital, where her condition deteriorated and she was pronounced dead the following day. Denison’s estate, through her daughter Brooke Denison as administratrix, and Brooke individually, brought separate lawsuits against the Mississippi Organ Recovery Agency, Dr. Shirley Schlessinger, and Dr. Dustin Shea Allen, among others, alleging claims such as negligence and infliction of emotional distress.In the Lauderdale County Circuit Court, the defendants moved to dismiss both complaints. In the estate’s case, the court granted dismissal based on the immunity provisions of the Revised Mississippi Uniform Anatomical Gift Act, finding the defendants acted in good faith and in reliance on the family’s authorization. In Brooke’s individual case, the court granted dismissal because her complaint did not allege that she was present or witnessed any negligent acts, thus failing to establish bystander liability. Brooke and the estate appealed these decisions.The Supreme Court of Mississippi consolidated the appeals. The Court held that the trial court erred by considering material outside the pleadings in the estate’s case without converting the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment, and thus reversed and remanded that case for further proceedings. However, the Court found that Brooke’s individual allegations failed to meet the requirements for bystander liability under Mississippi law and affirmed the dismissal of her claims. The Court expressly declined to decide whether immunity under the Anatomical Gift Act applied, noting the need for further factual development. View "Denison v. Mississippi Organ Recovery Agency, Inc." on Justia Law

A woman with a complex medical history, including autoimmune hepatitis and cirrhosis, was admitted to a regional medical center with symptoms of weakness, nausea, and vomiting. After consultation and diagnostic imaging suggested gallstones and cholecystitis, a general surgeon evaluated her and determined she was not a surgical candidate due to end-stage liver disease. She was treated non-surgically, showed some improvement, and was discharged. Two days later, she was admitted to another hospital with sepsis and subsequently died from cardiopulmonary arrest due to urosepsis.Her daughter, on behalf of her wrongful-death beneficiaries, filed a medical malpractice suit against, among others, the general surgeon. The plaintiff sought to introduce a board-certified interventional radiologist as her medical expert, whose testimony suggested that the surgeon failed to meet the standard of care by not pursuing further diagnostic testing or recommending non-surgical interventions. The Washington County Circuit Court struck this expert’s testimony, holding that the radiologist was not qualified to testify about the standard of care for a general surgeon, and granted summary judgment for the surgeon.The Mississippi Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the circuit court abused its discretion in excluding the expert. Upon further review, the Supreme Court of Mississippi found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion under Mississippi Rule of Evidence 702 in excluding the expert’s testimony, as the expert did not demonstrate sufficient familiarity with the field of general surgery or with the relevant procedures. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, reinstated, and affirmed the judgment of the circuit court, thereby upholding the exclusion of the expert testimony and the grant of summary judgment. View "Lee v. Doolittle" on Justia Law

A woman suffered serious injuries when she struck a large pothole while riding her motorcycle on a city street in Jackson, Mississippi. Her view of the pothole was blocked by a truck in front of her, and the accident resulted in a severely broken ankle requiring surgery and extensive recovery. Prior to the incident, she owned a caregiving business but was unable to resume her work due to her injuries, leading to significant financial hardship. The City of Jackson had received notice of the dangerous pothole eight days before the accident, classified it as a high priority, but did not repair it or place any warnings until months later.The case was tried in the Hinds County Circuit Court. The court denied the City’s motion for summary judgment, granted the plaintiff’s partial summary judgment on liability, and after a bench trial on damages, awarded her both economic and noneconomic damages. The City appealed, arguing that it was immune from liability under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act based on discretionary-function immunity and challenged the interpretation of statutory duties as well as the denial of summary judgment.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case. It held that while the City’s decisions about general street maintenance may involve policy discretion, its failure to warn about or timely repair a known dangerous pothole after receiving actual notice did not qualify for discretionary-function immunity under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act. The Court found that such failures were “simple acts of negligence” rather than protected policy decisions. The Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed the judgment of the Hinds County Circuit Court, holding that the City was not immune from liability and upholding the award of damages to the plaintiff. View "City of Jackson, Mississippi v. Lawson" on Justia Law