Estate of Northrop v. Hutto
9 So.3d 381, 2009 Miss. LEXIS 248, 2009 WL 1411366 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a medical malpractice case, a plaintiff's expert witness must articulate an objective, specific, national standard of care to establish a prima facie case; testimony based on the expert's personal preferences or a vague standard like 'constant vigilance' is insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment.
Facts:
- Abner K. Northrop, Jr. underwent a radical prostatectomy surgery.
- An anesthesia team led by Dr. Thomas P. Letard, with CRNAs Davis R. Hutto and Stanley Turner, managed his anesthesia and IV lines.
- During the surgery, Northrop's arms were extended at ninety-degree angles, taped to arm boards, and covered with a Bair Hugger warming blanket.
- The anesthesia team was responsible for monitoring Northrop's IV lines throughout the three-hour and ten-minute procedure.
- After the surgery was completed, Stanley Turner removed the blanket and discovered that the IV in Northrop's left arm had extravasated, leaking fluid into the surrounding tissue.
- Due to the extravasation, Northrop developed compartment syndrome, a condition of increased pressure in the tissues.
- A vascular surgeon performed an emergency fasciotomy to relieve the pressure, which required a subsequent skin graft taken from Northrop's thigh.
- Northrop's arm fully recovered its function but was left with scarring.
Procedural Posture:
- Abner K. Northrop, Jr. filed a medical malpractice suit against Hutto, Turner, Dr. Letard, and Memorial Hospital at Gulfport in the Circuit Court of the First Judicial District of Harrison County (the trial court).
- Upon completion of discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding that Northrop’s expert had not articulated a standard of care.
- Northrop (as appellant) appealed to the Mississippi Court of Appeals.
- A divided Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court's grant of summary judgment and remanded the case for trial.
- The defendants (as petitioners) petitioned the Supreme Court of Mississippi for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a medical expert's testimony establish the required national standard of care in a medical malpractice case when the expert fails to articulate an objective, specific standard and instead relies on personal preferences and a vague notion of 'constant vigilance'?
Opinions:
Majority - Randolph, J.
No, the expert's testimony does not establish the required standard of care. To make a prima facie case of medical malpractice sufficient to defeat summary judgment, the plaintiff must present expert testimony that articulates an objective, national standard of care, demonstrates a breach of that standard, and links the breach to the injury. In this case, the plaintiff's expert, Dr. Urdaneta, repeatedly admitted that no treatise, text, or official standard mandated visual or manual inspection of a covered IV site during surgery. Instead, Dr. Urdaneta relied on his personal practices and a subjective standard of 'constant vigilance.' This Court's precedent, notably in Hall v. Hilbun, requires an 'objectively ascertained' standard, not a subjective one based on an individual physician's preference. Because Dr. Urdaneta failed to establish an objective standard of care, the plaintiff did not make a prima facie case of medical malpractice, and summary judgment for the defendants was appropriate.
Dissenting - Kitchens, J.
Yes, the expert's testimony was sufficient to establish a standard of care. The dissenting justice believes that the expert's testimony regarding a standard of 'constant vigilance' presented sufficient evidence of an objective standard of care to create a genuine issue of material fact. Therefore, the case should not have been dismissed on summary judgment and should have been allowed to proceed to trial for a jury to decide.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high bar plaintiffs must clear to bring a medical malpractice case to trial in Mississippi. It solidifies the requirement that a plaintiff's expert must identify a specific, objective, and nationally recognized standard of care that was violated, rather than relying on generalized principles or personal opinions. The ruling makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to survive summary judgment if their expert cannot point to a concrete rule in a medical text or similar authority. Consequently, this precedent empowers defendants to challenge malpractice claims early in litigation based on the sufficiency of the plaintiff's expert testimony, potentially limiting the number of cases that reach a jury.
