Curtis L. Boyd v. Gregory Nunez, M.D. ( 2011 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2011-CT-00444-SCT
CURTIS BOYD, BY AND THROUGH MARY
MASTIN, NEXT FRIEND, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF AND FOR THE USE AND
BENEFIT OF CURTIS L. BOYD
v.
GREGORY NUNEZ, M.D.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/08/2011
TRIAL JUDGE: HON. JAMES T. KITCHENS, JR.
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: LOWNDES COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: JOHN W. NISBETT
MICHAEL A. HEILMAN
JONATHAN B. FAIRBANK
CHRISTOPHER THOMAS GRAHAM
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: DAVID W. UPCHURCH
ROBERT K. UPCHURCH
JOHN MARK McINTOSH
JANELLE M. LOWREY
JOSHUA S. WISE
NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - MEDICAL MALPRACTICE
DISPOSITION: REVERSED AND REMANDED - 01/09/2014
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
EN BANC.
DICKINSON, PRESIDING JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:
¶1. In this medical malpractice case, the defendant alleged the plaintiff’s discovery
response concerning his expert was insufficient. The trial judge ordered the plaintiff to
produce the expert for a deposition but, due to illness, the expert was unable to attend the
scheduled deposition. Without addressing whether the plaintiff was at fault for failure to
comply with the court’s order to produce the expert for deposition, the trial court ordered that
the expert would not be allowed to testify. The Mississippi Court of Appeal affirmed. We
reverse and remand for a hearing on that issue.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2. Dr. Gregory Nunez treated Curtis Boyd, a resident of Vineyard Court Nursing Center,
for approximately six months in 2004. Boyd claims that Dr. Nunez’s malpractice and the
nursing home’s negligence combined to cause an uncontrolled infection and the amputation
of his leg.
¶3. Boyd filed a medical malpractice suit against Dr. Nunez, and the parties agreed to a
scheduling order setting September 15, 2009, as the deadline for Boyd to designate an expert
witness; October 30, 2009, for the defendants to designate their expert; November 13, 2009,
for the close of discovery; November 20, 2009, for dispositive motions; and November 30,
2009, for the trial.
¶4. According to Dr. Nunez’s counsel at the hearing on his motion to compel, Boyd
timely designated Dr. John Payne as his medical expert on September 15, 2009. But Dr.
Nunez requested a more definite statement of the factual basis for Dr. Payne’s conclusions.
After receiving no supplementation, Dr. Nunez filed a motion to compel and requested
potential dates to depose Dr. Payne. On November 4, 2009, Boyd filed a supplementation
to his expert disclosure, and he moved for a continuance.
¶5. On November 9, 2009, at a hearing on Boyd’s motion for a continuance and Dr.
Nunez’s motion to compel, Dr. Nunez argued that Boyd’s supplementation was insufficient,
2
but he agreed that his concerns could be satisfied by deposing Dr. Payne before trial. The
trial judge ordered the parties to work together and schedule Dr. Payne’s deposition before
the scheduled trial date of November 30.
¶6. The trial judge did not rule on the motion for a continuance, stating that he was not
inclined to postpone the trial. He did state, however, that if the parties could not complete
Dr. Payne’s deposition before trial, he might have to continue trial to a later date. The parties
agreed to conduct Dr. Payne’s deposition on November 21, 2009.
¶7. On Friday, November 20, Boyd notified Dr. Nunez that Dr. Payne had become ill and
would be unable to appear at the scheduled deposition. Boyd provided Nunez with a second
supplementation to his expert disclosure, detailing all of the facts supporting Dr. Payne’s
opinions. At a later hearing, Boyd claimed he faxed a copy of the second supplementation
to Dr. Nunez that Friday afternoon, but Dr. Nunez claimed he did not receive it until the
following Monday, November 23.
¶8. On November 23, 2009, the parties conducted mediation, and Boyd settled with all
defendants except Dr. Nunez. When the parties appeared for the scheduled trial, Dr. Nunez
filed a motion to exclude Dr. Payne’s testimony, arguing that the trial court should not
consider the second supplementation filed after the close of discovery and that the original
designation and first supplementation were still insufficient.
¶9. Boyd argued that Dr. Payne’s illness was unforseen, and that the trial judge should
grant a continuance to allow the parties to reschedule the deposition. The trial judge found
that Boyd’s original designation and first supplementation were insufficient, and he refused
3
to consider the second supplementation. He then ruled that Dr. Payne would not be allowed
to testify.
¶10. Dr. Nunez then argued that, because Boyd could not prevail on his medical
malpractice claim without expert testimony, the trial judge should enter a final judgment in
his favor. The trial judge agreed and entered the final judgment. After the trial court denied
Boyd’s motion for reconsideration, he appealed, and the Mississippi Court of Appeals held
that the trial judge correctly excluded Dr. Payne’s testimony as a discovery sanction for
failure to provide a sufficient expert disclosure 1 and affirmed the summary judgment.2 We
granted certiorari.
ANALYSIS
¶11. We review a trial judge’s decision to exclude evidence as a discovery sanction for an
abuse of discretion.3 The trial judge excluded Dr. Payne’s testimony because he found that
Boyd had failed to satisfy the requirements of Rule 26 for expert disclosures. In determining
that exclusion was appropriate, he applied the four-factor test announced in Mississippi
Power & Light Co. v. Lumpkin.4 We find the trial judge analyzed the wrong discovery
issue.
¶12. Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 26 provides that:
1
Boyd ex rel. Mastin v. Nunez, No. 2011-CA-00444-COA, 2013 WL 500858, **3, 4 (Miss.
Ct. App. Feb. 12, 2013).
2
Id. at **5, 6.
3
Estate of Bolden ex rel. Bolden v. Williams, 17 So. 3d 1069, 1073 (Miss. 2009).
4
Mississippi Power & Light Co. v. Lumpkin, 725 So. 2d 721, 733, 34 (Miss. 1998).
4
A party may through interrogatories require any other party to identify each
person whom the other party expects to call as an expert witness at trial, to
state the subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify, and to state
the substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to
testify and a summary of the grounds for each opinion.5
¶13. Where one party alleges another party failed to fully respond to discovery, the proper
procedure is for the aggrieved party to seek a remedy from the trial court by filing a motion
to compel.6 And where, as here, the trial court orders relief, and the aggrieved party claims
the other party failed to comply with that order, the trial court must determine whether
sanctions are proper for failure to comply with the court’s order.7
¶14. After Boyd’s initial disclosure, Dr. Nunez made a request for further expert disclosure.
In response, Boyd provided a supplement to his expert designation. Dr. Nunez found the
supplementation inadequate and moved the trial court for an order compelling a more definite
statement of “the substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to
testify.” 8 At the hearing on Dr. Nunez’s motion to compel, the trial court fashioned a remedy,
ordering the parties to conduct a deposition of Dr. Payne prior to the trial set for November
30.
¶15. When the deposition did not take place because of Dr. Payne’s illness, Dr. Nunez
moved to exclude Dr. Payne’s testimony. Rather than analyzing whether Boyd should be
5
Miss. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4)(A)(1).
6
Ford Motor Co. v. Tennin, 960 So. 2d 379, 393 (Miss. 2007) (quoting Caracci v. Int’l
Paper Co., 699 So. 2d 546, 557 (Miss. 1997)).
7
Ford, 960 So. 2d at 393.
8
Id.
5
sanctioned for his failure to comply with the order to produce Dr. Payne for a deposition, the
trial judge went behind his previous order and sanctioned Boyd for his insufficient
supplementation. Said differently, the trial judge should have analyzed whether sanctions
were appropriate based on Boyd’s failure to produce Dr. Payne for a deposition, as the court
had ordered. Because the trial judge never engaged in that analysis, we must reverse and
remand.
CONCLUSION
¶16. Because the trial judge analyzed the wrong discovery issue, we reverse both the
judgment of the Court of Appeals and the trial court’s entry of final judgment and exclusion
of Dr. Payne’s testimony, and we remand this case for the trial court to determine whether
Boyd should be sanctioned for his failure to produce Dr. Payne for a deposition, as the court
had ordered.
¶17. REVERSED AND REMANDED.
WALLER, C.J., LAMAR, KITCHENS, CHANDLER AND PIERCE, JJ.,
CONCUR. COLEMAN, J., CONCURS IN PART AND IN RESULT WITHOUT
SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION. RANDOLPH, P.J., AND KING, J., NOT
PARTICIPATING.
6