Author Archives: Ryan Farmer

Estate of Fred Monroe Randal, Jr., V. Greenwood Leflore Hospital and Paula Spence, M.D.

Posted on by
14

Two of Wise Carter’s attorneys, Gaye Nell Currie and Rex M. Shannon III, recently successfully defended Greenwood Leflore Hospital in a medical negligence lawsuit regarding the alleged wrongful death of an infant in the hospital’s emergency department.

After spending two weeks in trial in Leflore County Circuit Court, the Court entered a judgment in favor of Greenwood Leflore Hospital. Fred Monroe Randal, Jr., by and through his Mother and next Friend, Betty Dunn on behalf of the Wrongful Death Beneficiaries and as Administratrix of the

Estate of Fred Monroe Randal, Jr., Deceased vs. Greenwood Leflore Hospital and Paula Spence, M.D.; in the Circuit Court of Leflore County, Mississippi, Cause No. 2003-0096-CI CI.

Crenshaw v. South Pike Hospital Association, Inc.

Posted on by
10

R. Mark Hodges and William J. Dukes successfully defended Beacham Memorial Hospital against a wrongful death claim asserted by the daughter of a patient who claimed her mother died as a result of improper care.

After three days of trial in Pike County Circuit Court, the trial judge granted the defense’s motion to dismiss the wrongful death claims.

Crenshaw v South Pike Hospital Association, Inc. d/b/a Beacham Memorial Hospital, in the Circuit Court of Pike County, Civil Action No. 09-103-PCS.

Mississippi Department of Employment Security v. Delta Staffing, LLC

Posted on by
19

Crane D. Kipp successfully overturned a ruling by the Mississippi Department of Employment Security that a nurse staffing agency’s contract workers were employees rather than independent contractors.

This is the first ruling in favor of the independent contractor status by the MDES in decades and reconciles the issue that has been the subject of conflicting Mississippi Supreme Court decisions since 1991.

This ruling bolsters the independent contractor status of staffing agency workers, particularly in the some what unique context of temporary staffing assistance in health care facilities. The holding will likely benefit hospitals and nursing homes throughout the state enabling them to access supplementary staffing as needed in an orderly and defined fashion.

Mississippi Department of Employment Security
Administrative Law Judge Decision April 12, 2012

Vaughn V. MBMC

Posted on by
14

Eugene R. Naylor and Gaye Nell Currie successfully defended appeal by plaintiff of trial court dismissal of plaintiff’s lawsuit against hospital.

The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down its opinion in Vaughn v. Mississippi Baptist Medical Center Inc., October 29, 2009, affirming the trial court’s order striking plaintiff’s nursing expert and granting summary judgment in favor of MBMC.

The Supreme Court, in an opinion that established precedent in Mississippi, declared that nurses were not qualified to give medical opinions on issues of causation between alleged standard of care issues and damages.

This holding is likely to benefit hospitals throughout the state, as it is now established that plaintiffs may not rely upon nursing experts alone to prove claims of nursing negligence, but that physician testimony is necessary to establish the causal link between alleged negligence and medical injury.

McCarty V. Illinois Central Railroad

Posted on by
12

George H. Ritter and Charles H. Russell, III represented Illinois Central Railroad in a Federal Employers Liabilaity Act (FELA) suit brought by a retired track inspector.

The plaintiff claimed that his job required the repetitive use of vibrating tools, that the Railroad didn’t tell him of the risks of carpal tunnel syndrome or provide him with safer tools, and that therefore the railroad negligently caused his carpal tunnel syndrome by failing to provide a safe work environment.

To do this, the plaintiff sought to introduce the testimony of the doctor who performed the surgery to correct his carpal tunnel syndrome, and of an ergonomist who inspected the plaintiff’s tools and work environment.

Mr. Ritter and Mr. Russell issued a Daubert challenge to exclude both experts’ testimony, arguing that their opinions were not based on science and were therefore unreliable. The court agreed, finding that the plaintiff’s doctor had not done any tests to determine a connection between the plaintiff’s work and his carpal tunnel syndrome.

The court excluded the ergonomist’s testimony because, while he identified risk factors for carpal tunnel syndrome, the ergonomist had no evidence of how much exposure to these risk factors could cause carpal tunnel syndrome. The court therefore excluded the testimony of both witnesses because their conclusions were merely personal opinions and not based on any scientific methodology.

Since the plaintiff no longer had any evidence of causation or foreseeability, and since he offered no evidence of what constituted a safe or unsafe work environment, he was unable to meet his burden of proving the railroad liable for his injuries. Mr. Ritter’s and Mr. Russell’s motion for summary judgment was therefore granted in favor of Illinois Central and the case dismissed.

NO. CIV.A. 3:06-CV-00177
February 26, 2008 and
NO. CIV.A. 3:06-CV-00177-HTWLRA
March 27, 2008

Thomas v. Greenwood Leflore Hospital

Posted on by
7

Gaye Nell Currie was able to successfully defend the plaintiff’s appeal of the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of our client, Greenwood Leflore Hospital.

The Mississippi Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision that a judgment of dismissal was warranted in the matter as the plaintiffs failed to follow the pre-suit requirements of the Mississippi Torts Claim Act and failed to timely file their suit within the applicable limitations period.

As did the trial court, the Court of Appeals rejected plaintiff’s misleading conduct to prevent them from discovering the physicians’s employment status and timely filing their action but instead found that plaintiffs failed to engage in a due diligence investigation prior to filing suit to determine the defendant’s status.

Mabus v. St. James Episcopal Church

Posted on by
10

Charles E. Ross and Brenda Jones represented St. James Episcopal Church, the Episcopal Diocese of Mississippi, Inc., and Jerry McBride in Hinds County Circuit Court against claims of breach of fiduciary duty, fraudulent concealment, negligent misrepresentation, invasion of privacy, negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligent retention/supervision, and clergy malpractice.

The plaintiff, a parishioner of St. James Episcopal Church, alleged that McBride, the church’s former priest, participated in the tape recording of a conversation between the plaintiff and her husband without the plaintiff’s knowledge. The trial court found that the purpose of this recording was to secure evidence that the plaintiff’s husband could use as leverage in order to obtain a no-fault divorce from the plaintiff.

At Mr. Ross’ and Mrs. Jones’ request, the trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants on all of the claims except the fraudulent concealment claim against Mr. McBride. On appeal by both the plaintiff and Mr. Ross and Mrs. Jones on behalf of Mr. McBride, the Supreme Court of Mississippi held that the First Amendment did not preclude jurisdiction of the court over the claims in that the conversation at issue did not involve ecclesiastical matters.

The court further held that the trial court was correct in granting Mr. Ross’ and Mrs. Jones’ motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s breach of fiduciary duty claim due to the fact that the plaintiff did not establish the existence of a fiduciary relationship between herself and Mr. McBride.

Regarding the plaintiff’s remaining negligence claims, the court again affirmed the trial court’s granting of Mr. Ross’ and Mrs. Jones’ motion for summary judgment in that, in order to establish a duty on the part of Mr. McBride, St. James, and the diocese, the court would be forced to involve itself too extensively in religious matters, which is not permitted by the First Amendment. Finally, the court affirmed the trial court’s denial of summary judgment on Mr. McBride’s fraudulent concealment claim.

Supreme Court of Mississippi
October 7, 2004

Ware v. Entergy Mississippi, Inc.

Posted on by
12

Charles E. Ross and Bill Lovett represented Entergy of Mississippi against a wrongful death claim resulting from an electrical contractor being electrocuted and killed when the light pole that he was erecting touched an overhead power line owned by Entergy.

Mr. Ross and Mr. Lovett filed several motions in limine with the trial court. Of these motions, one sought to have the jury instructed to allocate fault to the plaintiff’s immune employer who had previously been dismissed from the lawsuit, one sought to exclude any testimony or evidence pertaining to whether Entergy should or could have placed the power line underground, one sought to have an Entergy internal memorandum discussing the feasibility of underground power line installation excluded, and one sought to exclude all references to a utility company standard of care other than the exercise of reasonable care.

The trial court granted the first three motions and denied the fourth. On interlocutory appeal, the Supreme Court of Mississippi agreed with Mr. Ross’ and Mr. Lovett’s contention that Mississippi law allows fault to be assessed to immune parties; accordingly, the court affirmed the trial court’s granting of Entergy’s motion in limine regarding fault allocation.

The court also affirmed the trial court’s exclusion of the internal memorandum due to the fact that its prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value. However, the court found that the trial court was incorrect in granting Mr. Ross’ and Mr. Lovett’s motion in limine to exclude evidence pertaining to whether Entergy should have placed the power line underground.

Despite Mr. Ross’ and Mr. Lovett’s argument that the filed rate plan precluded Entergy from placing the power line underground unless the customer agreed to pay for such placement, the court concluded that the filed rate plan did not apply to the case at bar because the Policy For The Extension of Underground Electric Distribution Facilities did not prevent Entergy from placing its power lines underground at its own expense if such placement was feasible.

Finally, regarding the motion in limine pertaining to Entergy’s standard of care, the court ultimately held that the standard of care that Entergy had to meet was derived from Mississippi Code Annotated § 11-7-43, the NESC, and Mississippi case law.

Supreme Court of Mississippi
December 31, 2003

Blailock v. Hubbs et al.

Posted on by
12

R. Mark Hodges and Lynda C. Carter represented a hospital, which was one of four defendants, in Pike County Circuit Court against a claim of medical negligence.

The plaintiff claimed that, due to the negligence of the defendant in the delivery of her child, the child developed cerebral palsy and was otherwise permanently injured.

The trial court granted Mr. Hodges’ and Mrs. Carter’s motion to dismiss the hospital from the suit due to the plaintiff’s failure to timely file their notice of claim within the one-year statute of limitations mandated by the Mississippi Tort Claims Act.

Accordingly, the central issue on appeal was whether the trial court was correct in dismissing the hospital from the suit. Relying on the “discovery rule”, the plaintiff claimed that they filed a notice of claim within one year after they discovered the facts upon which their negligence claim was based. Therefore, argued the plaintiff, the statute of limitations was tolled by the discovery rule.

However, the Supreme Court of Mississippi held that the trial court was correct in granting Mr. Hodges’ and Mrs. Carter’s motion to dismiss Southwest from the lawsuit. The court reasoned that the discovery rule did not toll the statute of limitations in that the plaintiff failed to exercise reasonable diligence in discovering the facts that formed the basis of the claim.

NO. 2003-CA-00587-SCT
January 6, 2003