Woolum v. Hillman

329 S.W.3d 283 (2010)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Ps alleged medical malpractice against D for his treatment of the pregnancy after the mother, Lisa Hillman (P), was diagnosed with pregnancy-induced hypertension (preeclampsia). As of July 11, 2002, everything appeared normal with the due date as September 16. P attended her scheduled appointment on August 7, 2002, and learned she had a heightened blood pressure reading of 140/100. D informed her that her condition was dangerous and could lead to toxemia and seizures, and instructed her to stay on bed rest and visit him biweekly or immediately if she noticed any problems. D decided not to advance the due date to before 37 weeks. Ps condition worsened. Eventually, it was agreed to deliver the child on September 3, almost two weeks sooner than the original due date. During the night of September 2, before the scheduled appointment, P went into labor. Nurses could not find a heartbeat in the child. The child was then delivered stillborn. D did not recommend an autopsy, but he concluded that the child had been dead for at least 24 hours. D told Ps the cause of death was preeclampsia. Ps sued D. D countered that the cause of death was a genetic disease, trophoblasts, which affected the placenta and which was untreatable by D. D filed a pretrial motion to exclude evidence that Dt and his expert witness, Dr. Butcher, shared a malpractice insurance carrier. Ps sought to admit the evidence to demonstrate the expert witness's bias in favor of D. Ps claimed he was biased because he believed that a judgment against his insurance company could adversely affect his own premiums. During a deposition Dr. Butcher had described how several malpractice claims against his former liability insurer had driven up his premiums and eventually drove the insurer into bankruptcy, effectively forcing him out of practice in Mississippi. Regarding his new practice in Kentucky, he had stated that doctors were now leaving the Commonwealth because of malpractice claims resulting in increased premiums. The court denied the motion in limine and again denied it at trial. Ps got the verdict and the appeals court affirmed. D appealed.