 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Paepke v. North Mississippi Medical Center Inc.3/23/1999
ll departments with which he had contact at the North Mississippi Medical Center on or about July 31, 1993.
14. That in my expert opinion, based upon a reasonable degree of medical certainty, the failure of the North Mississippi Medical Center to provide competent care and treatment for Jerry Paepke on or about July 31, 1993 will directly and proximately cause Jerry Paepke to suffer medical and mental problems for the remainder of his life.
. The affidavit stated that Dr. Brown, Dr. Currie, and the NMMC, breached the applicable standard of care in the evaluation, documentation, diagnosis, treatment, care and Disposition of Mr. Paepke. Though the affidavit did not use the terms of art typically expressed in the medical community, the standard of care for both physicians as well as the medical center was effectively delineated throughout the affidavit. Basing his opinion on his eighteen years of having actively participated and practiced in the field of emergency medicine, Dr. Ellis indicated the standard of care for an emergency room physician, radiologist, or hospital as the rendering of proper diagnosis, evaluation and documentation. Viewing the affidavit in the light most favorable to Mr. Paepke, the non-moving party, this Court finds that the standard of care was properly delineated and a genuine issue of material fact was therefore established.
. Mr. Paepke also contends that the trial court erred in requiring that he present expert medical testimony which established the standard of care when the appellees presented no medical testimony to support their motion for summary judgment.
. This Court finds that the trial court did not err in requiring that Mr. Paepke present expert medical testimony in the absence of any expert medical testimony from the appellees. "The party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of persuading the trial court that no genuine issue of material fact exists, and that they are, based on the existing facts, entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The movant and non-movant bear the burdens of production corresponding to the burdens of proof they would bear at trial. Thus, the movant only bears the burden of production where they would bear the burden of proof at trial. Correspondingly, the non-movant, provided would bear the burden of proof at trial on the issue in question, is responsible for 'producing supportive evidence of significant and probative value' in opposition to the motion for summary judgment." Daniels v. GNB, Inc., 629 So.2d 595, 600 (Miss.1993) (citations omitted). Because Mr. Paepke bore the burden of producing supportive evidence in opposition to the summary judgment motion, he properly presented a medical affidavit which described the requisite standard of care for an emergency room physician, radiologist, and hospital.
. Because Mr. Paepke presented expert medical testimony regarding the standard of care and the movants failed to thereafter establish a lack of genuine issue of fact, this Court reverses the grant of summary judgment and remands for jury consideration of the issue.
. THE JUDGMENT OF THE LEE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT IS REVERSED AND REMANDED. COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO THE APPELLEE.
McMILLIN, C.J., SOUTHWICK, P.J., BRIDGES, COLEMAN, DIAZ, IRVING, LEE, PAYNE, AND THOMAS, JJ., CONCUR.
Page 1 2 3 Mississippi Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|