X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Torts No. 03-02-00188-CV, 4/17/2003. Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS: This is a medical malpractice action arising from the birth of Mikayla Mauzey who, at birth or soon thereafter, suffered from a respiratory disorder requiring 17 days’ hospitalization. Her parents, appellants Mike and Melissa Mauzey sued the appellees, Lourell E. Sutliff M.D. and the Shannon Clinic, Sutliff’s employer. The district court rendered judgment on the jury’s verdict that the Mauzeys take nothing; the Mauzeys appeal. Mikayla Mauzey was born as a result of labor induced by Sutliff. Mikayla’s gestational age upon delivery was 38 weeks and four days; she was not considered premature. Although the parties dispute the facts surrounding the decision to induce labor, the record indicates that Sutliff was scheduled to leave town on the anticipated delivery date, and Melissa preferred that Mikayla be born at Shannon Medical Center, a larger hospital in San Angelo, rather than a hospital in Big Spring, where the Mauzeys resided. Shortly after birth, Mikayla developed respiratory difficulties necessitating her transfer to Cook Children’s Hospital in Fort Worth. There, Mikayla received treatment for 17 days, requiring a ventilator to assist her breathing for part of the time. Once Mikayla achieved normal respiration, the hospital released her. The parties also dispute the specific medical infirmity affecting Mikayla. The Mauzeys’ expert testified that Mikayla suffered from “respiratory distress syndrome, including hyaline membrane disease [HMD] and persistent pulmonary hypertension of a neonate”; Sutliff’s expert diagnosed the problem as “pulmonary hypertension of an unknown cause”; Mikayla’s neonatal physician identified her ailment as pulmonary hypertension, which may or may not be associated with HMD. The Mauzeys filed suit, originally naming Shannon Medical Center and two of its nurses in addition to Sutliff and the Clinic. Shortly thereafter, the Mauzeys nonsuited all but Sutliff and the Clinic. The five-day trial centered on the testimony of four physicians, one of whom was Sutliff. Four expert witnesses were called by the Mauzeys: 1. Sutliff, called as an adverse witness; 2. Dr. David Turbeville, Mikayla’s treating neonatologist at Cook Children’s Hospital; 3. Dr. Russel Jelsema, the Mauzeys’ retained expert; and 4. Dr. Micheal Stephens, Melissa’s and Mikayla’s treating family practitioner. Sutliff also retained a testifying expert, Dr. Richard Stanley. On the basis of the jury’s finding of no liability, the district court rendered a take-nothing judgment against the Mauzeys, who now appeal. HOLDING: Affirmed. The court holds that Stanley’s Oct. 22 letter barely suffices as an expert’s report, thereby allowing Stanley to testify as to the matters disclosed within its four corners, it falls short of satisfying the spirit of full evidentiary disclosure. Here, once the district court ruled in advance of trial that he would allow Stanley to testify, the Mauzeys could have done more to determine the extent of Stanley’s proposed testimony. Under these circumstances, the district court did not abuse his discretion in allowing the testimony at trial. However, the court urges trial courts to carefully consider such matters and ensure that a pretrial expert report fully discloses the breadth and substance of the expert’s mental impressions and their basis. The court also urges trial courts to exercise their discretion in a manner that allows a case to be fully developed before the jury. Although the court cannot say that the district court abused his discretion in denying the Mauzeys’ request to exhibit the learned-treatise tables by overhead projector when cross-examining Sutliff, such exhibition would not have violated Texas Rule of Evidence 803(18). OPINION: Yeakel, J.; Kidd, Smith and Yeakel, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.