Ronald A. Bullock, M.D. v. W. L. Lott and Laura Lott, individually and on behalf of the wrongful death beneficiaries, as parents of Dustin Lott, a deceased minor

Summary

The Mississippi Supreme Court reviewed a wrongful-death and medical-malpractice action arising from the death of a minor from a brain infection. The court held that venue was proper in the county where the death occurred under the version of Mississippi's venue statute applicable when the action was filed, but concluded that the trial court erred in permitting the plaintiffs' medical expert to testify about facts not supported by the evidence. The judgment was reversed and the case was remanded for a new trial.

Holdings

1. For a wrongful-death action filed before January 1, 2003, venue may be proper both in the county where the alleged negligence occurred and in the county where the death occurred, because the pre-amendment venue statute permitted suit where the cause of action could occur or accrue.
2. Although the plaintiffs' expert was qualified to testify regarding the standard of care applicable to a family-practice physician, the trial court abused its discretion by permitting him to testify to purported medical facts and causation mechanisms that were not supported by sufficient facts or data in the record.
3. Medical publications may be used to cross-examine an expert under Mississippi Rule of Evidence 803(18) only after their status as reliable authorities has been established through the testimony or admission of the witness, other expert testimony, or judicial notice.
4. A new trial was required because the verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence when considered together with the improper expert testimony based on unsupported factual premises.

Questions Presented

1. Whether venue was proper in Covington County under the version of Mississippi Code section 11-11-3 applicable when the wrongful-death action was filed in 2002.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion under Mississippi Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert by permitting the plaintiffs' expert to testify to opinions based on facts not supported by the evidence.
3. Whether the trial court improperly permitted cross-examination of defense experts using medical articles that had not been established as reliable authorities under Mississippi Rule of Evidence 803(18).
4. Whether the jury verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence and therefore required a new trial.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded