Background
Curtis Hays died after treatment for a suspected heart attack at Singing River Health System in 2017. His daughter, Marcia Hays, and his wife, Janice Hays, sued the hospital for wrongful death, alleging that its employees improperly discontinued an intra-aortic balloon pump and caused his death.
The plaintiffs sued Singing River alone. After extended discovery and repeated extensions to designate an expert, they offered cardiologist Dr. Barry Uretsky. He opined that weaning and removing the balloon pump fell below the standard of care, but he did not identify a Singing River employee who committed that breach. In a supplemental report, he specifically concluded that Nurse Cheryl Longfellow did not breach the standard of care by changing the pump setting pursuant to a physician’s order.
The Court’s Holding
The Mississippi Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Singing River. Because the hospital was subject to the Mississippi Tort Claims Act, it could be liable only for torts committed by its employees, not independent-contractor physicians. The hospital’s sworn evidence established that only Nurses Tangela Burkes and Longfellow were employees among the providers named in the suit.
The plaintiffs did not produce expert proof that either employee breached a duty or proximately caused Hays’s death. Their expert’s opinion criticized the removal of the balloon pump but did not attribute that conduct to a hospital employee, and his supplemental opinion exonerated Longfellow regarding the setting change. The court also rejected the request for more discovery, noting that the case had been pending since 2018 and the plaintiffs had not pursued written discovery or depositions concerning the providers’ employment status.
Key Takeaways
- A medical-malpractice plaintiff must offer expert evidence establishing each element of the claim to withstand summary judgment.
- A public hospital system is not liable under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act for negligence by independent contractors.
- An expert opinion criticizing treatment generally is insufficient when it does not identify a breach by the defendant hospital’s employee.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that plaintiffs pursuing malpractice claims against public hospital systems must connect expert opinions to conduct by actual hospital employees. Evidence of substandard care by a physician will not support liability where the physician is an independent contractor.
It also illustrates the limits of additional-discovery relief at the summary-judgment stage when a party has had ample time but did not pursue the relevant evidence.