Court: Mississippi Supreme Court; March 17, 1987; Mississippi; State Supreme Court
In the case of Sarah Lee Brown v. John P. Mladineo, M.D., the Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed a medical malpractice claim stemming from a 1981 surgery. Brown underwent a total hysterectomy performed by Dr. Mladineo at Mississippi Baptist Medical Center. Following her discharge, she developed a rectovaginal fistula, resulting in feces passing through her vagina, which was diagnosed by another doctor. Brown alleged that the fistula was caused by Dr. Mladineo's negligence during the surgery, specifically that he improperly sutured her colon.
Brown sought $100,000 in damages for medical expenses and suffering. At trial, her only expert witness, Dr. John Cockrell, was excluded by the judge due to a lack of evidence that he was familiar with the standards of care in gynecological surgery in Mississippi. The defense successfully moved for a directed verdict, as the plaintiff had no other expert testimony to support her case.
Dr. Cockrell, despite being a qualified general surgeon with extensive experience, had not performed surgery since 1955 and was not a specialist in gynecological surgery. The court noted a previous ruling that Dr. Cockrell was an expert in surgery, but the defense argued that his generalist status made him unqualified for this specific case. The central issue on appeal was whether the trial court erred in excluding Dr. Cockrell's testimony, as the standard for admitting expert testimony typically does not require specialists for every branch within a profession.
Most courts permit a doctor to testify based on their knowledge of a specialty's standards, even if they do not practice in that specialty. The key factor for admissibility is the witness's knowledge rather than their title, as noted in Fitzmaurice v. Flynn. A pathologist can provide testimony regarding ob/gyn surgical standards. However, the appellee argues that Mississippi has a distinct rule, citing Hall v. Hilbun, which suggests that only specialists may express opinions about their field's standards. The court clarifies that Hall did not intend to impose a restrictive standard limiting testimony to specialists. In this case, the trial judge improperly excluded Dr. Cockrell's testimony. Therefore, the judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for a full trial. The decision was supported by multiple justices.
