Seffernick v. St. Thomas Hospital

Citation: Not availableDocket: 01A01-9606-CV-00282

Court: Court of Appeals of Tennessee; December 17, 1996; Tennessee; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Matthew Seffernick, the plaintiff, appealed a summary judgment from the Davidson Circuit Court, which dismissed his medical malpractice suit against Saint Thomas Hospital and Dr. Barry E. Yarbrough. The appeal raised three primary issues: the trial court's decision to strike the testimony of Dr. Winston Hall Worthington, the sufficiency of that testimony to establish causation, and the awarding of discretionary costs to the defendants.

The plaintiff alleged that he suffered severe complications, including vision loss, due to negligent treatment received in the hospital's emergency room. The defendants supported their motion for summary judgment with an affidavit from Dr. Yarbrough, asserting that his treatment adhered to accepted medical standards and that he was not responsible for the complications. In contrast, the plaintiff submitted Dr. Worthington's affidavit, claiming that the treatment was below Nashville's medical standards.

Initially, the trial judge denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment in 1993. However, in October 1995, the defendants filed a motion to strike Dr. Worthington's testimony, arguing it was untrustworthy, that he was not qualified as an expert, and that his testimony would not assist the jury or would mislead them. The motion was supported by Dr. Worthington's deposition testimony and other documentation. On November 30, 1995, the trial court granted the defendants' motions, leading to the dismissal of the case. The appellate court ultimately reversed, vacated, and remanded the decision.

Dr. Winston Hall Worthington's testimony has been struck under T.R.Civ. P. 56.05 and T.R.E. 703 due to an insufficient factual and scientific basis, lack of substantial assistance to the trier of fact, irreconcilable discrepancies between his affidavit and deposition, and fundamental untrustworthiness of his opinions. Consequently, there is no genuine issue of material fact, warranting Summary Judgment in favor of the Defendants, leading to a dismissal with prejudice. The plaintiff is responsible for costs, with execution to issue if necessary.

On appeal, the plaintiff argues against the existence of a provision for a motion to strike testimony in the T.R.C.P. While not explicitly authorized, motions to strike inadmissible evidence are acknowledged in practice, particularly in jury trials where jurors are instructed to disregard such evidence. Historical case law is cited to illustrate the acceptance of motions to strike. The appellant further contends that rules of evidence do not allow for exclusion based on the character of the expert. T.R.E. Rule 702 permits qualified experts to testify, while T.R.E. Rule 703 allows exclusion of expert testimony if the underlying data lacks trustworthiness. The trial judge possesses broad discretion regarding expert qualifications, though this discretion can be challenged on appeal if arbitrarily exercised. The court notes that no Tennessee authority supports exclusion of expert testimony purely based on the expert's character. However, an expert's reliability in both knowledge and honesty is a critical qualification for admissibility.

The reliability of Dr. Worthington's opinion was challenged based on his affidavit, which asserted familiarity with the medical standards of care in Nashville, Tennessee, relevant to emergency medicine. Dr. Worthington reviewed medical records and an affidavit from Dr. Yarbrough, concluding that Dr. Yarbrough failed to meet the standard of care in treating Matthew Seffernick on June 27, 1992. Specifically, Dr. Yarbrough did not schedule a follow-up appointment within 24 hours to check for infection, nor did he prescribe Garamycin Ointment or ensure the patient was treated adequately, which led to Seffernick suffering from endophthalmitis and subsequent vision loss. The defendants attempted to introduce evidence from a deposition of Dr. Worthington, but it lacked the necessary affidavit and could not be considered valid evidence. Additionally, the defendants referenced Dr. Worthington's federal conviction, but appellate court opinions are not admissible as evidence. Without competent evidence to discredit Dr. Worthington, the court found the summary judgment unsupported and reversed it, remanding the case for further proceedings, with costs assigned to the defendants.