Background
Mary Upchurch underwent surgery by Dr. Adam Lewis to replace a pain pump and a spinal-cord-stimulator battery. When one of her existing St. Jude leads would not fit the Boston Scientific battery, Dr. Lewis performed additional surgery to replace the stimulator. Upchurch later developed a hematoma and suffered lasting leg paralysis.
Upchurch and her husband sued Dr. Lewis, his clinic, and the hospital. They settled with the hospital before trial. A jury found Dr. Lewis was not negligent. The circuit court entered judgment for the defendants and denied the Upchurches’ motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and a new trial. The Court of Appeals reversed for a new trial, concluding that insufficient evidence supported the defense verdict.
The Court’s Holding
The Mississippi Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the defense verdict. Although Dr. Lewis was not formally tendered or accepted as an expert witness, the Upchurches did not object to his standard-of-care testimony at trial. That objection was therefore waived, and his testimony remained evidence the jury could consider.
Viewing the evidence favorably to Dr. Lewis and his clinic, the Court held that sufficient evidence supported the verdict. Dr. Lewis testified that his treatment met the standard of care and that the existing lead was damaged and could not have been used with any battery or adapter. The jury was entitled to assess the competing testimony and reject the Upchurches’ experts. The Court also upheld the denial of a new trial, the denial of a directed verdict regarding hospital nursing staff liability, and the challenged jury instructions. It separately affirmed the appellate-cost order in the consolidated appeal.
Key Takeaways
- A party waives an objection to testimony based on a witness’s lack of formal expert qualification if it does not make a contemporaneous trial objection.
- Unobjected-to physician testimony that treatment met the standard of care may support a defense verdict, even against contrary expert testimony.
- Appellate courts may not reweigh conflicting evidence or witness credibility when substantial evidence supports the jury’s verdict.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the importance of preserving evidentiary objections at trial. A litigant cannot wait until appeal to challenge standard-of-care testimony because the witness was not formally qualified as an expert.
For medical-malpractice appeals, the ruling also underscores the high bar for overturning a defense verdict: conflicting expert evidence ordinarily presents a jury question, not a basis for appellate reweighing.