Ken E. Cleveland, George T. Smith-Vaniz, M.D., and Jackson HMA, Inc. d/b/a Central Mississippi Medical Center v. Lanell Hamil, Individually and on Behalf of the Wrongful Death Beneficiaries of Emmett O. Hamil, Deceased, Who Are Entitled to Recover Under the Wrongful Death and Survival Statute

Summary

The Mississippi Supreme Court held that the plaintiff’s medical-negligence expert improperly introduced an undisclosed theory of malpractice at trial. Because exclusion of that testimony left the plaintiff without admissible expert evidence establishing the applicable standard of care or breach, the court concluded that judgment notwithstanding the verdict was required rather than a new trial. The court affirmed in part and reversed in part the Court of Appeals and reversed and rendered judgment for all defendants.

Holdings

1. A plaintiff may not use inadmissible expert testimony to establish the applicable medical standard of care or a medical provider's breach of that standard.
2. JNOV was proper because, after exclusion of the undisclosed expert opinion, the plaintiff failed to present admissible evidence establishing a prima facie case of medical malpractice against Dr. Cleveland.
3. The judgments of the Court of Appeals and the Hinds County Circuit Court were reversed in part, and judgment was rendered for all defendants.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred by remanding for a new trial against Dr. Cleveland rather than rendering judgment in his favor after determining that the plaintiff's only expert testimony concerning his alleged breach was an undisclosed and inadmissible new theory.
2. Whether a plaintiff in a medical-malpractice action may establish the standard of care or breach through inadmissible expert testimony.
3. Whether JNOV is appropriate when, after exclusion of improperly admitted expert testimony, the plaintiff lacks admissible evidence establishing a prima facie medical-malpractice case.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded