Phillips by and Through Phillips v. Hull
516 So. 2d 488, 1987 WL 21979 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a medical malpractice action, a claim for negligent surgical performance requires expert medical testimony to survive summary judgment, while a claim for lack of informed consent does not. The standard for informed consent is based on what a reasonably prudent patient would need to know to make an informed decision, a factual question that a jury can decide without expert testimony.
Facts:
- Debra Ann Phillips, a diabetic for whom future pregnancies were considered high-risk, gave birth via caesarean section on January 17, 1980.
- Immediately following the delivery, Dr. Calvin T. Hull performed a tubal ligation (sexual sterilization) surgery on Phillips.
- Phillips alleged that while a nurse discussed the procedure with her, Dr. Hull failed to personally inform her that the tubal ligation was not 100% effective and did not advise her to continue using contraception.
- Dr. Hull contended that he did inform Phillips that the procedure had occasional failures.
- Following the surgery, Phillips became pregnant and gave birth to a daughter, Julie Ann Phillips, on August 30, 1981.
- The plaintiffs alleged that Julie Ann was born with cerebral palsy as a result of the failed procedure and subsequent pregnancy.
Procedural Posture:
- Debra Ann Phillips, her husband, and her daughter (the Phillipses) filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against Dr. Calvin T. Hull and Woman's Hospital in a Mississippi trial court.
- After the Phillipses' counsel stated they had no expert witness, both defendants filed motions for summary judgment, supported by expert affidavits.
- The Phillipses opposed the motions by submitting an affidavit from Debra Ann Phillips.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of both Dr. Hull and the hospital.
- The Phillipses (appellants) appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Dr. Hull (appellee) to the Supreme Court of Mississippi.
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 plaintiff in a medical malpractice case need to provide expert medical testimony to survive a summary judgment motion on claims of both negligent surgical performance and lack of informed consent?
Opinions:
Majority - Prather, J.
No as to the informed consent claim; Yes as to the negligent performance claim. A plaintiff does not need expert medical testimony to survive summary judgment for a claim of lack of informed consent, but expert testimony is required for a claim of negligent surgical performance. The court analyzed the two claims separately. For the negligent performance claim, Mississippi law requires expert testimony to establish the standard of care and its breach, unless the matter is within the common knowledge of laypersons. Since the plaintiffs provided no expert to rebut Dr. Hull's experts, summary judgment on this claim was proper. However, the informed consent claim is different because it hinges on the communication between doctor and patient, which is a factual dispute. The court adopted the 'prudent patient' standard, which holds that a physician must disclose known risks that would be material to a prudent patient's decision. The conflicting affidavits of Phillips and Dr. Hull about what was said created a genuine issue of material fact that a jury, not a judge on summary judgment, must decide. Therefore, summary judgment on the informed consent claim was improper.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the differing evidentiary standards for two distinct theories of medical malpractice liability in Mississippi. By formally adopting the 'prudent patient' standard for informed consent, the court shifted the focus from the professional customs of doctors to the informational needs of patients. This decision makes it procedurally easier for plaintiffs to pursue informed consent claims, as they do not need to secure costly expert testimony on this issue, and can instead survive summary judgment based on the patient's own testimony about the lack of disclosure. The ruling reinforces a clear division: claims about a doctor's technical skill require expert proof, while claims about a doctor's failure to communicate material risks are treated as factual questions for a jury.
