Manda Griffin v. North Mississippi Medical Center Inc.,
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2009-CA-00672-COA
MANDA GRIFFIN, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS A
WRONGFUL DEATH BENEFICIARY, AND ON
BEHALF OF ALL OTHER WRONGFUL DEATH
BENEFICIARIES OF GRACIE M. STEPHENS,
DECEASED
APPELLANT
v.
NORTH MISSISSIPPI MEDICAL CENTER
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
APPELLEE
04/09/2009
HON. PAUL S. FUNDERBURK
LEE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
FELECIA PERKINS
HIAWATHA NORTHINGTON II
JOHN G. WHEELER
CIVIL - WRONGFUL DEATH
DIRECTED VERDICT FOR APPELLEE
AFFIRMED: 01/18/2011
EN BANC.
GRIFFIS, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
Manda Griffin filed a wrongful-death claim against North Mississippi Medical Center
(NMMC) in the Lee County Circuit Court. She alleged that NMMC was vicariously liable
for the negligence of a nurse that caused her mother’s death. Griffin now appeals the circuit
court’s directed verdict that was entered in favor of NMMC. We find no error and affirm.
FACTS
¶2.
Gracie Stephens was a sixty-one-year-old diabetic with kidneys that no longer
functioned. Because of her total renal failure, she required dialysis. Initially, she dialysed
by way of an abdominal peritoneal dialysis catheter. However, the abdominal site became
infected, and doctors determined it was necessary to switch to a hemodialysis catheter that
would be placed in her jugular vein. Surgeon Dr. Terry Pinson was called upon to install the
catheter. During the operation, Dr. Pinson inadvertently punctured Stephens’s carotid artery.
He attempted to repair the carotid artery with stitches, placed the catheter in the jugular vein,
and closed the site. Stephens was then transferred to the recovery room.
¶3.
In the recovery room, Sherry Crenshaw was the nurse assigned to care for Stephens.
According to testimony, while Stephens was in the recovery room, her blood pressure and
blood volume steadily fell to dangerously low levels, which was consistent with internal
bleeding from an ineffectively repaired carotid artery. Crenshaw reported Stephens’s falling
blood pressure to anesthesiologists in the recovery room, and some treatments were
administered. However, the treatments were only temporarily effective, and Stephens’s
condition continued to deteriorate. Approximately three-and-a-half hours after Stephens first
entered the recovery room, Dr. Pinson was called. Dr. Pinson determined it was necessary
to reopen the surgical site. However, before that could be done, Stephens went into cardiac
arrest and suffered extensive brain damage. She died approximately seven days later.
¶4.
Stephens’s daughter, Griffin, filed a wrongful-death claim against Dr. Pinson. Later,
the complaint was amended to add NMMC as a defendant. The circuit court granted
summary judgment in favor of Dr. Pinson, and this Court affirmed that judgment on appeal.
Griffin v. Pinson, 952 So. 2d 963, 963 (¶1) (Miss. Ct. App. 2006). The case proceeded to
2
trial with NMMC as the sole defendant. At the close of Griffin’s evidence, the circuit court
granted NMMC’s motion for a directed verdict. It is from this judgment that Griffin now
appeals.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶5.
On appeal, we conduct a de novo standard of review of a motion for a directed verdict.
Munford, Inc. v. Fleming, 597 So. 2d 1282, 1284 (Miss. 1992). When deciding whether the
granting of a motion for a directed verdict was proper by the lower court, this Court considers
the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and gives that party the
benefit of all favorable inferences that may be reasonably drawn from the evidence presented
at trial. Id. If the favorable inferences have been reasonably drawn in favor of the
non-moving party so as to create a question of fact from which reasonable minds could
differ, then the motion for a directed verdict should not be granted, and the matter should be
given to the jury. Id.
ANALYSIS
¶6.
Griffin’s theory at trial was that Crenshaw was negligent in failing to timely recognize
the signs of Stephens’s blood loss and negligent in failing to timely warn Dr. Pinson, or
another surgeon, of such blood loss and that Crenshaw’s negligence resulted in a fatal delay
of surgical intervention that would have stopped the bleeding and saved Stephens’s life.
Griffin alleged NMMC was vicariously liable for Crenshaw’s negligence. The circuit court’s
directed verdict was based on the court’s finding that Griffin had failed to present sufficient
evidence on the issue of proximate cause. Griffin contends this was error.
¶7.
The Mississippi Supreme Court articulated the requirements for a prima facie case in
3
medical-malpractice suits, stating:
A prima facie case for medical malpractice must be made by proving the
following elements: (1) the existence of a duty by the defendant to conform to
a specific standard of conduct for the protection of others against an
unreasonable risk of injury; (2) a failure to conform to the required standard;
and (3) an injury to the plaintiff proximately caused by the breach of such duty
by the defendant. Drummond v. Buckley, 627 So. 2d 264, 268 (Miss. 1993)
(citing Burnham v. Tabb, 508 So. 2d 1072, 1074 (Miss. 1987)). “When
proving these elements in a medical malpractice suit, expert testimony must
be used. Not only must this expert identify and articulate the requisite
standard that was not complied with, the expert must also establish that the
failure was the proximate cause, or proximate contributing cause, of the
alleged injuries.” Barner v. Gorman, 605 So. 2d 805, 809 (Miss. 1992) (citing
Latham v. Hayes, 495 So. 2d 453 (Miss. 1986)).
Hubbard v. Wansley, 954 So. 2d 951, 956-57 (¶12) (Miss. 2007).
¶8.
The first two elements – duty and breach of duty – are not at issue here. Griffin
submitted expert testimony of a nurse to establish duty and breach of duty. This evidence
is not challenged on appeal. Instead, the element of proximate cause is the crux of this
appeal.
¶9.
This case considers a legal theory called the “lost chance of recovery.” To establish
the element of proximate cause in a lost-chance-of-recovery case, where the allegation is that
a medical provider failed to administer proper care and that the failure allowed an already
existing injury to deteriorate, the plaintiff must prove that had proper care been administered
then it is probable, or more likely than not, that a substantially better outcome would have
resulted. Id. at 964 (¶42). Stated differently, the plaintiff must show that, absent malpractice,
there is a greater than fifty-percent chance that a substantially better result would have
followed. Id.
¶10.
Griffin’s theory was basically that Crenshaw had failed to take appropriate action to
4
arrest Stephens’s bleeding. It is important to note that the actions of Dr. Pinson in surgery
are not at issue, since he was granted summary judgment and is no longer a defendant and
that Crenshaw did not assume responsibility until Stephens entered the recovery room
already suffering from the punctured, and possibly ineffectively repaired, carotid artery.
Thus, the essential allegation to be proved was that proper care was not administered and that
failure to administer that care allowed an already existing injury to deteriorate.
¶11.
To establish her prima facie case, Griffin had to offer expert testimony to establish
that had Crenshaw timely recognized the blood loss and timely warned a surgeon, the
surgeon would have intervened, and that intervention would have, more likely than not,
saved her mother’s life.
¶12.
Griffin offered the expert testimony of Dr. Richard Truly. Dr. Truly was accepted by
the circuit court as an expert in emergency and family medicine. Dr. Truly claimed no
expertise in surgery and was not accepted as an expert in that field.
¶13.
Dr. Truly testified, as to causation, that “[m]y opinion is that the – that the negligence
on behalf of the hospital contributed and proximately caused her death by the mere fact that
there was [failure to recognize the signs of blood loss].” Dr. Truly did not testify as to what
a surgeon would have done had he been notified of the blood loss or what the odds of success
would have been had a surgeon timely intervened. Dr. Truly was not an expert in surgery,
so any testimony to that effect would have drawn an objection. Indeed, Dr. Truly could not
testify as to what a surgeon would have done, nor could he testify that timely surgical
intervention would have, more likely than not, saved Stephens’s life. Thus, Dr. Truly did not
offer sufficient evidence to support an essential element of Griffin’s prima facie case in this
5
lost-chance-of-recovery case.
¶14.
The circuit court decided that Dr. Truly’s testimony was insufficient to create a jury
question as to proximate cause in a lost-chance-of-recovery case. We agree. Finding no
error, we affirm.
¶15. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF LEE COUNTY IS
AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO THE
APPELLANT.
MYERS, P.J., ISHEE, ROBERTS, CARLTON AND MAXWELL, JJ.,
CONCUR. IRVING, J., DISSENTS WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION
JOINED BY KING, C.J., AND LEE, P.J. BARNES, J., NOT PARTICIPATING.
IRVING, J., DISSENTING:
¶16.
The majority finds that the circuit court did not err in granting a directed verdict
against Manda Griffin because she failed to present sufficient evidence to create a jury issue
as to the proximate cause of Gracie M. Stephens’s death. The basis for the circuit court’s
ruling, which is embraced by the majority, is that Griffin’s expert, Dr. William Truly, was
not competent to testify as to the cause of Stephens’s death. Specifically, the circuit court
found:
¶17.
Adequate proof of proximate cause in a medical malpractice action of this type
requires evidence that in the absence of the alleged malpractice a significantly
better result was probable or more likely than not.
There is nothing in the testimony of Dr. Truly, Nurse Ross, or anyone else of
the chances of sparing the life of Ms. Stephens had Nurse Crenshaw-- had
Nurse Crenshaw’s care of Ms. Stephens had been exactly as Nurse Ross and
Dr. Truly think it should have been.
Without this evidence, the plaintiff has failed to make a prime facie case. . . .
¶18.
Since I believe both the circuit court and the majority have erred, I dissent. I would
6
reverse and remand this case for a new trial.
¶19.
Dr. Truly was accepted as an expert in the practice of emergency and family medicine.
In order to properly appreciate and evaluate Dr. Truly’s testimony, I will present it in the
question-and-answer context as it occurred, complete with objections and rulings by the
circuit court. On day one, Dr. Truly testified as follows:
Q.
Dr. Truly, what were you asked to do with regard to this particular
case?
A.
I was asked to review this case, as I understand it, and give an opinion
as to the cause of death.
Q.
And could you tell the jury exactly what you did in doing so?
A.
I reviewed the medical records as relates to this patient. I reviewed her
admission of 12-29. I reviewed her admission of November 11th. I
reviewed her renal status. I reviewed her admission to the PACU. I
reviewed Dr. Pinson's operative note, as well as his procedure. I
reviewed the nursing notes, as well as the laboratory and everything
that happened in PACU. I reviewed when she was transferred from
PACU over to surgery. So I was able to develop a total picture of this
patient's evaluation and her management and give some reasonable
cause or give a cause in my opinion of why she died and why she bled
to death.
Q.
And did you indeed form such opinions?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Could you share those with the jury?
NMMC’S ATTORNEY: May it please the Court, I object to that. This
witness has not been properly qualified to state
that opinion.
GRIFFIN’S ATTORNEY:
Your Honor, as was stated in the
evaluation of Mr. Truly during his proffer,
he -- as a part of his experience in the
fields of emergency medicine and family
7
medicine, he has been called upon to
formulate opinions with regard to cause of
death. He has been qualified as an expert
in court and testifying in these particular
areas based on his experiences in family
medicine and emergency medicine. These
are the designations that he was given and
these are the qualifications for his giving
those opinions, and his opinions as stated
today will be consistent with the
designation that was provided to the Court.
THE COURT:
The Court is of the opinion that Dr. Truly is qualified by
his knowledge, skill, experience, training and education
in the fields of family and emergency medicine to testify
and state his opinion as to the cause of death in this case.
Certainly, the Court is of the opinion that both family
physicians and emergency room physicians are qualified
to form opinions as to the cause of death of persons
under their care. So the objection is overruled. You may
answer the question.
Q.
(Griffin’s Attorney) The question, Dr. Truly, was whether you formed
opinions and what those opinions were?
A.
Yes.
THE COURT:
I believe he had answered he had formed an opinion.
GRIFFIN’S ATTORNEY:
THE COURT:
The question now is what is his opinion.
GRIFFIN’S ATTORNEY:
A.
That's correct, Your Honor.
Thank you.
Yes. I have formed an opinion as to the cause of this patient's death that
I would like to share with you. And my opinion is that this patient, one,
bled to death. And to share with you what happened, this patient went
to -- went to surgery on January 4th of 2001, and before she went to
surgery, she by definition had a normal 4 blood volume, what we call
a normal hemoglobin, which was like 11.8 and that was done on 12-292000. She went and she had her surgery, and, of course, all of -- we
now know what happened in surgery. Dr. Pinson inserted a catheter
8
into the patient's carotid artery. His intent was to insert a catheter into
the patient's internal -NMMC’S ATTORNEY: I apologize, but I have to object to this. This
testimony is clearly far afield of the expertise of
someone in family medicine and emergency
medicine. To offer an opinion as to the cause of
death is one thing, but to comment upon the care
provided by physicians well far afield from his
specialty, who he has admitted he does not have
expertise in, is irrelevant and inappropriate. I want
the record to reflect my objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT:
The objection on that point is sustained.
GRIFFIN’S ATTORNEY:
Your Honor, if I may, with regard to the
testimony that he has given with regard to
these actions by Dr. Pinson, these records
that been admitted into the evidence in this
case, as well as testimony and questions
from Mr. [NMMC’s attorney], testimony
from Ms. Ross, merely state the facts that
are reflected in the records. Dr. Pinson
performed this operation. It went a certain
way. Mr. [NMMC’s Attorney] asked
questions of Ms. Ross regarding what
happened during the surgery. He is not
giving opinions about whether that was
right or wrong. He's saying that's what
happened.
NMMC’S ATTORNEY: Your Honor, perhaps we could be heard on this
outside the presence of the jury.
THE COURT:
All right. It's a good time to take a recess anyway, give
the jury a break. Ladies and gentlemen, go with the
bailiff. Again, do not discuss this case among yourselves
or form or express any opinions about the case.
(JURY LEAVES THE COURTROOM AT 3:13 P.M.)
THE COURT:
All right. Mr. [NMMC’S attorney].
9
NMMC’S ATTORNEY: May it please the Court, I certainly understand the
Court's ruling with respect to the hospital's
objection that would allow this witness proffered
and accepted by the Court over objection as an
expert in family medicine and emergency
medicine. We did not contest his qualifications in
that regard, as the Court knows. However, it is
anticipated that at some juncture this witness is
going to be asked a question of connecting up the
alleged neglect of the nurse to his theory of cause
of death, and it is our strong position, Your
Honor, that he has not demonstrated the
qualifications necessary to offer such an opinion.
It goes without saying, and I think even Nurse
Ross conceded, that in order for something to be
done that would have altered the outcome for this
patient, action would have had to have been taken
by one of her attending physicians, either a
general surgeon or an anesthesiologist. Even if
we accept Nurse Ross' criticisms that the nurse
failed to inform the doctor correctly, intervention
would have required action by a physician. This
physician, Dr. Truly, does not know and is not an
expert on what is done by anesthesiologists or
general surgeons in any clinical circumstance. He
has not demonstrated that expertise. In Hall vs
Hilbun, Hardy vs Brantley, Palmer vs Biloxi
Regional, Cheeks vs Biotech, Troupe vs North
Mississippi Medical Center, a case tried in this
very court, Hubbard vs Wansley, the Supreme
Court said repeatedly that this Court, the trial
court, is the gatekeeper, and that not every doctor
is qualified as an expert in every malpractice case.
Dr. Truly is without question, according to the
Court, an expert on two topics, family medicine
and emergency medicine. Any effort by him to
causally connect the alleged nurse negligence in
this case to this patient's death is far afield from
his expertise, and we object to it.
THE COURT:
MR. [Griffin’s Attorney].
GRIFFIN’S ATTORNEY:
Yes, Your Honor. The expertise that Mr.
10
Truly -- Dr. Truly has with regard to
family medicine and emergency medicine
is established in the hospital setting, and
certainly -- and these questions are going
to bear this out -- Dr. Truly has experience
dealing with nurses and dealing with
patients in post-surgical care situations, as
he stated. So to that extent, we submit to
the Court that Dr. Truly is not only
qualified to talk about issues relating to the
alleged breaches and whether that was
related to the cause of death, but also, if he
were to be questioned about hospital
procedures as they related to nurses, he'd
be qualified to talk about that. My
understanding of M r. [NM MC’S's
attorney’s] objection was whether or not
Dr. Truly could talk about any kind of
breach or any kind of action with regard to
Dr. Pinson and this surgical intervention.
Dr. Truly has already stated that he is not
a surgeon, and I don't believe his
testimony, as reflected by the court
reporter, will indicate that he is talking
about any kind of breach on the part of Dr.
Pinson. I think the record will reflect that
he is merely stating that the record
indicates that during the course of the
surgical procedure these things happened.
He hasn't given an opinion, and I don't
think he is going to give an opinion as to
whether or not such constituted anything
other than what the record said or did.
THE COURT:
Well, the defense objection is, among other things, is Dr.
Truly is. . . I have allowed him to testify as to his opinion
as to cause of death. The defense objection is...is any
further testimony by him going to the issue of proximate
cause. Is that correct, Mr. [NMMC’S attorney]?
NMMC’S ATTORNEY: It is exactly that, Your Honor, and Counsel
misunderstands the objection, and, Your Honor,
an anticipatory objection was made because
11
Counsel's questions -- and I am not criticizing him
-- are simply state your opinion. I have no idea
when Dr. Truly is going to offer that opinion to
the jury, but I want to make the objection now,
because I anticipate that it's coming. The record
will clearly reflect that Dr. Truly was identified to
us as an expert within the last two weeks. I
confessed the substitution of Dr. Truly for Dr.
Goldstein. However, the order from this Court
specifically reads that we reserve all objections as
to his qualifications and the competency of his
opinions. And my point is this: Dr. Truly can not
tell us what any anesthesiologist or general
surgeon would have done or should have done
had their theory of recovery been correct. Had the
nurse been negligent and had she been obligated
to give more information to Dr. Thompson, Dr.
Byars, Dr. Pinson, Dr. Douglas, Dr. Eldridge, if
their theory is correct and she owed them more
information, he can not tell us, because he is not
an expert as to what they would have done or
what they could have done or should have done,
and for that reason we object to him offering any
opinion on proximate causation.
THE COURT:
MR. [Griffin’s Attorney], that is the – the issue is
whether or not Dr. Truly can offer an additional opinion
that -- on causation of death. What -- what do you say to
that?
GRIFFIN’S ATTORNEY:
THE COURT:
Tell you what, continue your examination of Dr. Truly.
The jury is outside the presence of the courtroom.
GRIFFIN’S ATTORNEY:
THE COURT:
Q.
Well, I think, Your Honor -- and I want to
be clear on what our purpose for having
Dr. Truly testify is.
Backtrack to where he left off, Your
Honor?
Yes, sir.
MR. [Griffin’s Attorney] Dr. Truly, I'd like you to tell the Court, you
12
were speaking as we left off with regard to the issue of the surgical
procedure of Dr. Pinson. And my question to you is: After that
occurred, do you have any opinions as to whether or not the cause of
death was related to anything that occurred after that?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And that's what I wanted to ask you questions about and what I want
you to inform the Court in this proffer.
A.
My opinion -- my opinion -- my opinions are related to what occurred
after surgery, and as I was attempting to explain, my opinion is that the
patient bled to death and that is based on the fact that before she
received her surgery, she had a, by definition, a normal hemoglobin of
11.8, and she entered PACU at 15:24, if I recall correctly. She was in
PACU 40 minutes, and her hemoglobin had dropped from its baseline,
from 11.8 to a 9.5, which is around about 4:04 or 4:10, and it continued
to drop over a period of 2 hours and 45 minutes to a 6.8, which is
further evidence of bleeding, and by the time – I think that was about
6:49. Eleven minutes later, around about 7:00, she had dropped down
to a 6. That's a tremendous amount of loss of blood as it relates to the
perfusion of the brain, and I think as a consequence of her acute loss of
blood, as a consequence of her sustained episodes of hypotension that
she experienced in the PACU, that she suffered a cardiac arrest, and I
agree with the death certificate, that she had hypertension, and that all
of this was due to her encephalopathy, as seen on the EEG, that speaks
to the whole issue of hypoxic brain injury as seen on the CT scan, that
speaks to the issue of destruction of the gray white matter, brain edema
and brain injury. So I think that this acute bleed, this profound
hypotension over a period of a couple of hours, with no intervention led
to this patient's death.
Q.
And, Dr. Truly, do you have an opinion as to whether or not the
breaches as elaborated by Ms. Ross caused or contributed to the cause
of death?
A.
I think it was a contributing cause of death, because my opinion is that
nurses are not helpless ladies, that nurses have certain rights. If Ms.
Crenshaw didn't know, she should have known that in the face of, one,
blood loss as represented by falling hematocrit, in the face of two,
sustained hypotension -- sure, there were times when there was
intervention, where boluses of normal saline was given,
vasoconstrictors in the form of Neosynephrine was given that -- that
13
normalized the blood pressure, but that was only brief. The real state of
this patient returned to its original state, sustained hypertension, and if
she -- if she -- if she didn't know, she should have known that this was
something ominous and grave, that this represented blood loss, and that
the only doctor who could have intervened in the presence of acute
blood loss would have been the surgeon, the proper doctor.
Q.
A.
¶20.
And hypotension meaning blood pressure lower than normal?
Yes.
After an overnight recess, Dr. Truly continued his testimony. Again, I present that
testimony in the context that it was given, complete with objections and the rulings of the
circuit court:
Q.
Good morning, Dr. Truly.
A.
Good morning, sir.
Q.
When we broke yesterday, if I am correct, your testimony had begun
with your discussion of the issue of lack of oxygen to vital cells. If you
could follow-up on where your testimony was to the jury?
A.
I am specifically trying to recall specifically the issue that we were
talking about, but I think it was with relevance to the cause of death of
Ms. Gracie, and I think I was -- I was talking about her being
transferred to the PACU. I think I recall that correctly. She was
transferred to the PACU following her surgery, and as a consequence
of her being transferred to the PACU, there were certain kinds of things
that happened in the PACU. And she was transferred, if I recall
correctly, at 15:24, which is about 3:24. While in the PACU, she had
falling blood pressures. She didn't just have a low type blood pressure
that you saw reflected on the screen. She had falling blood pressures.
What, as I would interpret as an emergency room physician, blood
pressures that were dangerously low. In the face of her failing blood
pressures, she had lost 20 percent of her blood. Meaning that we have
about five liters, or five quarts as some people say, and she had lost one
of hers. Well, how do we know that? We know that because we looked
at what her blood level was before she went into the PACU, and before
she went into PACU, her blood count was 11.5. And after having been
14
in PACU for 40 minutes, she dropped from her baseline down to a 9.5,
and this is around about 4:10 or 4:04. Interestingly enough, 2 hours and
45 minutes later she didn't just drop to a 9.5 and stop. Based on the
record, the medical record presented to me, she continued to drop. At
18:49 or 6:49 she had dropped all the way down from a 9.5 at 4:10 to
a 6.8. So she had dropped all the way down to a 6.8 around about 6:49,
and 11 minutes later she had dropped all the way down to a 6. So when
you look at all of the falling blood pressures, and when you look at the
falling blood count, meaning her hemoglobin hematocrit, that is a loss
of blood, and that is why her pressure was low, because she was losing
blood. She was trying to tell Nurse Crenshaw something when she got
into trouble around about 17:51. There was a change in her mental
status, and there was a change in her physical status. When you go back
and look at the record, she is calm, she has good strength, but around
about 17:50, which is about 5:50, she is uncooperative. She is pulling
off her oxygen. She is pulling off her blood pressure cuff. She is flailing
around in the bed. She falls back. She is restless. In the presence of a
falling blood pressure and in the presence of a falling hematocrit, when
patients become restless and uncooperative, and there is a change in
their status and they develop this kind of -- kind of air hunger, that
means that they are bleeding. There is a change in her status. So at this
particular time something needs to be done. So she became
unresponsive about 26 minutes after she started flailing around and
being restless and being short of breath, and she became unresponsive
because she didn't have enough blood left to sustain her, and that's why
she became unresponsive.
Q.
And, Dr. Truly, if you could, give the jury an understanding what you
mean by not having enough blood left?
A.
Well, blood carries the oxygen that we breathe, and what I mean by
that, if you simply take water and put it in a balloon, it will expand, and
if you punch a hole in the balloon, the water comes out. So we need
blood to maintain our balance, to maintain our blood pressure. We need
blood to be delivered to our vital organs; our brain, our heart, our liver,
our lower extremities, upper extremities. We have to have blood, and
when we suddenly lose blood -- it's one thing when you lose blood over
a period of -- over a period of six months, or three months, as a
consequence of some kind of an anemia, but it is another thing when
you lose that amount of blood over a period of two to three hours. That
is difficult to -- it is difficult to sustain that kind of blood loss, and
when you lose that kind of blood loss, your entire body is going to shut
down. You are going to become simply unresponsive and go into a
15
cardiac arrest.
Q.
And what impact did the blood loss that you are talking about have on
Ms. Stephens, if any?
A.
The blood loss that I am talking about, that had on Ms. Stephens, is that
it caused her to go into a cardiac arrest. It caused her to stop breathing.
Caused her heart to stop breathing, and it caused the intervention of
emergency measures, and which is what they did. There was an
intervention of emergency measures, where you beat on the chest, you
put a tube down, you give life-saving medicines to keep the blood
pressure up and to try to . . . to . . . restore circulation. They worked on
Ms. Gracie from the time she became unresponsive, which was 6:26,
if I recall correctly, all the way over to 19:42. So it was from 6:26 all
the way over to -- not -- yeah, 6:26 all the way over to 7:42. 7:42. So
they worked on her, and they finally restored her, but by the time they
restored her, when you go and look in the record, she was evaluated by
a Dr. Milev, who was her kidney doctor, and he gave her what was
known as a scale, called a Glasgow scale, or some people call it a
Glasco scale. It is a scale that tells us how much brain damage there is,
and he gave her a scale of 3, and people who have a scale of 3, there is
an 85 percent chance that either they will die, or either they will remain
a vegetable, and this is what happened in her case. The next day she
had a CT scan, and the CT scan showed brain injury. Specifically it
shows a destruction 10 of what we call gray and white matter,
collection of fluid on the brain, brain injury. She also had what was
known 12 as an EEG. That, simply speaking, showed hypoxic brain
injury, which means by definition her brain is of no function, or her
brain is dead. My impression is that this patient died as a consequence
of blood loss, sustained hypotension that she experienced in the PACU,
and it was the blood loss, the lack of oxygen, that caused her brain
injury, that we call 19 hypoxic brain injury, or encephalopathy, as some
people 20 might call it, which is on her death certificate, and this is
what caused her death and caused her not to ever recover.
Q.
And Dr. Truly, do you have any opinions as to whether or not the
breaches as alleged by Ms. Ross had anything to do with this cause of
death?
A.
I -- I think that in the -- I think that in the -- yeah, the answer is yes,
because in the PACU there is a -- you have a falling blood pressure, and
you have a falling hematocrit, and that kind of information -- look, we
have a patient whose blood pressure is critically low, whose hematocrit
16
has fallen. This represents blood loss. So a doctor, or a resident, or a
third-year student should know that falling blood pressures, falling
hematocrits, a sudden change in a patient's status, being restless and
uncooperative, and falling back on the bed, and getting out of control
is a representation that something is wrong here. This is just not right.
Something is wrong here, and there needs to be an intervention.
Q.
Dr. Truly, in your review of the medical records, did you observe at any
time that Ms. Stephens had any kind of respiratory distress?
A.
She experienced respiratory distress at 5:51. There were two
components of her illness while in the PACU. One, there was a
hematoma, swelling of the neck; and two, there was a description of
respiratory distress in the form of her respirations were shallow.
Normally when people breathe, they breathe normally. Their
respirations are not shallow. Coupled with, if you are in a PACU, or if
you are in an ICU, or wherever you are in a hospital, and a loved one's
respirations become shallow, and they are basically lethargic, meaning
it seems as if they just don't have any energy, or they just can't do
things, then that's a danger sign that there is a change in this patient's
status.
Q.
And Dr. Truly, did you notice anything else in the medical records, the
nurse's notes in the PACU, which would indicate to a nurse that there
was blood loss occurring?
A.
What I noticed was the fact that when she first went into the PACU,
there was no blood loss, when she first went in. Forty minutes after
being in the PACU, there is a documentation of blood loss. What is the
documentation? It changed from a normal blood count of 11.5, which
is near normal, down to a 9.5. That means there is a 20 percent blood
loss, that she has dropped down, coupled with the sustained
hypotensions, sustained low blood pressures. I need to share with you,
however, that there were times when this patient was given what's
known as boluses of fluid that equal to in one -- couple of instances less
than a glass of water, or 200 ccs. In some instances, more than a glass
of water, 300 ccs, and that would cause her blood pressure to go up, but
it would never stay up. It would never sustain. There were times when
her blood pressure was critically low, and she was given blood pressure
medicines, called Neosynephrine, that would make her blood pressure
go up, but after a while her blood pressure would go back to the
original level, the kind of level that you would see as a consequence of
not having enough volume or not having enough blood to keep her
17
pressure at a normal level. She simply just didn't have enough fluids in
her body, enough blood in her body to keep it at a normal level. You
could give her boluses, you could give her all of these medicines, and
because the fluid, the blood, wasn't there, she simply would drop back
down. And so, my interpretation of that is that here is a lady who has
falling blood pressures and who has a falling hematocrit, who was
uncooperative and restless, and that kind of information, that is
important to the patient, was not ever communicated to the individual
who did the surgery. Dr. Truly, you spoke previously about
encephalopathy as being her end result, in terms of her brain damage.
A.
Yes.
Q.
Did you, in determining the cause of death in this case, rule out any
other causes of death?
A.
Well, you know, Ms . . . Ms. Gracie had several diseases. One, she had
what was known as end-stage renal disease, and what that basically
means is that her kidney, or kidneys for that matter, simply were not
functioning for her. So she had to have what was known as substitute
kidney. Her substitute kidney was the peritoneal dialysis, and the same
as hemodialysis, it is really by definition a substitute kidney. It is a
kidney that works for you when your kidney no longer functions. So
what is the purpose of the kidney? The purpose of the kidney is to clear
all accumulated waste, and if we do not clear that accumulated waste,
then, of course, we die. So when people's kidneys fail, we have to have
something like a substitute kidney, which is the hemodialysis machine,
which is one way of keeping the blood free of waste. Of course, the
other way is peritoneal dialysis, where you put a tube into the abdomen
and you feed a dialysate, a solution into the abdomen, and through a
process the waste comes from the capillaries that line the stomach into
the dialysate, and it comes out. So that is how you are able to -- to use
peritoneal dialysis to clear the body of waste. So she -- but it was not -it was not – end-stage renal disease does not mean the end of life. I
manage patients with end-stage renal disease who are 70, 80 years of
age. So it doesn't mean the end of life. We see people all the time who
are in their 70s and 80s on dialysis. So I was never impressed that that
was the cause of death. She also had the complications of diabetes,
meaning that her vision was affected. The vessels lining her retina was
affected, that we call 14 diabetic retinopathy. That was not the cause
of her 15 death. She also had what they call sepsis, and when you 16
go back and look at her record, Ms. Gracie had what was known as
chronic peritonitis. She had a chronic infection of her peritoneum, and
18
she -- I don't recall her, when she was in PACU, having what was
known as acute peritonitis. Acute peritonitis is where you have the
chills, the fevers, the rigor, the stomach is tender. You punch on the
belly and remove your hand, and there is what is known as rebound
tenderness. So I don't ever recall that, but she did have chronic
peritonitis from the catheter that was in her abdomen. She had a lot of
blood cultures done after . . . after her . . . she became brain dead, and
there is nowhere in the record where an organism was found in her
blood, that I recall. Usually, when people have -- there is a difference
between -- there are some people who -- who – who define sepsis as an
infection. I need to share with you that there is a difference between an
infection and a septicemia. People have tonsilitises, and their white
count goes up, but they don't have septicemia. Septicemia means, or
bacteremia means the finding of bacteria in the blood stream. That is
how we define bacteremia or septicemia. It is characterized by fevers
and chills and a bacteria in the bloodstream. A bacteria was never found
in her blood stream. When you go back and you look at her record, she
did have white count of 12,000, with normal being about 10, white
count of 10, maybe 11, but before Dr. Pinson did the surgery, it was
12,000. When you go back and look at her white count after her -around about 8:40, which was January 4th, 2001, she has a white count
of 22,000. Now the real question is, is that related to – is that a
septicemia? Because what happens is when an individual has a cardiac
arrest, and all of the intervening measures take place, we now know
that it is not unusual to find an elevated white count. I'm not saying to
you that -NMMC’S ATTORNEY: Your Honor, may it please the Court, I apologize
for interrupting. I'm being as patient as I can be, but this is so far afield from
this witness' disclosure, that I am compelled for the record to object.
GRIFFIN’S ATTORNEY:
THE COURT:
The objection is sustained. From what the Court recalls,
the expert's proposed testimony would be as reflected in
the filings with the Court.
GRIFFIN’S ATTORNEY:
Q.
I would impose a question, Your Honor.
Thank you, Judge.
Dr. Truly, do you have an opinion as to whether or not failures or
omissions of North Mississippi Medical Center caused or contributed
to Ms. Stephens' death?
19
A.
Q.
Please share that opinion with the jury.
A.
My opinion is that the -- that the negligence on behalf of the hospital
contributed and proximately caused her death by the mere fact that
there was -- one, there was a failure to recognize the significance of a
falling blood pressure, coupled with a falling hematocrit, coupled with
a patient who is uncooperative and restless, coupled with the change in
her status, coupled with air hunger. So there was a failure of the
hospital to respond to these changes of a falling blood pressure and a
falling hematocrit or hemoglobin. The falling hematocrit, the
hemoglobin, represents that she is bleeding.
Q.
Are those opinions given to a reasonable degree of medical probability?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Dr. Truly, when did Ms. Stephens expire?
A.
If I recall correctly, I think she actually expired on the 10th or the 11th
of January 2001.
Q.
And what was her condition between the date of her death and the date
of the surgery?
A.
¶21.
Yes.
She was in a vegetative state.
It seems clear to me that, based on Dr. Truly’s testimony, Griffin was entitled to have
a jury consider whether the negligence of Nurse Crenshaw in not timely notifying Dr. Pinson
was a proximate cause of Stephens’s death. Surely a jury might find that the delay in
notifying Dr. Pinson was a proximate cause of Stephens’s death, as the delay either allowed
her to bled to death or substantially increased her chances of dying from a tardy intervention
by Dr. Pinson once he was notified. To suggest that Griffin failed to present adequate expert
testimony because Dr. Truly was not qualified to give an expert opinion in the field of
surgery evades the crucial question: should Nurse Crenshaw have notified Dr. Pinson earlier
20
than she did, and did this delay proximately contribute to Stephens’s death?
¶22.
For the reasons presented, I dissent. I would reverse and remand for a new trial.
KING, C.J., AND LEE, P.J., JOIN THIS OPINION.
21
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
