Ruby Angela Hubbard and Pinkie J. Hubbard, individually and on behalf of and in her capacity as guardian of her daughter Ruby Angela Hubbard v. Billy M. Wansley, M.D.

Summary

The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for Dr. Billy M. Wansley in a medical malpractice action arising from treatment of Ruby Angela Hubbard after a subarachnoid hemorrhage. The Court held that Hubbard’s proposed neurosurgical expert was not qualified to testify regarding the standard of care applicable to an internal-medicine physician, that Wansley was not subject to a neurologist’s or neurosurgeon’s standard of care, and that the layman exception did not apply. The Court also rejected Hubbard’s challenges concerning the designation of an additional expert.

Holdings

1. The circuit court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Dr. Stringer, although an experienced neurosurgeon familiar with treating subarachnoid hemorrhages, lacked demonstrated familiarity with the standard of care applicable to an internal-medicine practitioner and therefore was not qualified to testify on that issue.
2. Dr. Wansley should not have been held to the standard of care of a neurologist or neurosurgeon because the record did not show that he gave assurances that he possessed the skills of those specialists or undertook treatment of Hubbard's condition to the exclusion of consultation with a neurologist.
3. The alleged negligence did not fall within Mississippi's layman exception, so Hubbard was required to present qualified expert testimony.
4. The circuit court's inadvertent order granting Hubbard thirty additional days to designate an expert did not justify depriving Dr. Wansley of the summary judgment already granted.
5. Hubbard failed to present evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact on causation, so summary judgment was proper.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Dr. Lynn Stringer was qualified to testify regarding the standard of care applicable to Dr. Wansley, an internal-medicine physician.
2. Whether Dr. Wansley should have been held to the standard of care of a neurologist or neurosurgeon because he allegedly assumed the duties of those specialties.
3. Whether the alleged negligence fell within Mississippi's layman exception, making expert testimony unnecessary.
4. Whether the circuit court erred by entering final judgment after inadvertently granting Hubbard additional time to designate another expert.
5. Whether Hubbard presented sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding medical causation.

Disposition

affirmed