Senith C. Tipton

Martindale Hubbell logoSENITH C. TIPTON (Senith), a native of Natchez, Mississippi, graduated magna cum laude with a Bachelor of Arts degree from Millsaps College, 1962, a Master of Arts degree from Mississippi College, 1964, and a Juris Doctorate with special distinction from Mississippi College School of Law in 1980. She served as Senior Associate Editor of the Mississippi College Law Review and served as an adjunct professor of law at Mississippi College School of Law. She is past president of the Mississippi Defense Lawyers Association, and served as chair of the Litigation and General Practice Committee of the Mississippi Bar and as a trustee of the Mississippi Bar Foundation. She also served on the Board of Directors of the Defense Research Institute. Mrs. Tipton is currently a member of the Hinds County, Mississippi and American Bar Associations and is admitted to practice in all state and federal courts in the state of Mississippi, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the United States Supreme Court. Mrs. Tipton is AV peer review rated and handles primarily medical malpractice, nursing home negligence, and insurance coverage matters.

Current Employment Position(s):

Litigation Percentage:

Bar Admissions:

Education:

Professional Associations and Memberships:

Recent Trial Decisions:

Perry vs. Mariner, et al, Grenada County, Mississippi, Circuit Court (December 2003)
Senith Tipton and Carl Hagwood defended this medical malpractice/wrongful death action brought against Grenada Health & Rehab. Center alleging neglect by the nursing home against Vader Perry. The jury returned a verdict on behalf of all Defendants, and the Circuit Court’s denial of Plaintiff’s post-trial Motions was affirmed by the Mississippi Supreme Court.

Summary Judgments:

McCorkle v. Dr. Kevin Braswell et al; Grenada County, Mississippi, Circuit Court (Sept. 2009)

Senith Tipton and Diane Pradat were granted summary judgment on behalf of the defendant in a medical malpractice case. The plaintiff alleged that the on-call ophthalmologist was negligent when he was consulted over the phone by the emergency room physician. Ms. Pradat successfully argued that, based on the facts in the case, this phone consultation did not give rise to a doctor/patient relationship and therefore no duty was owed the plaintiff by the ophthalmologist. Since the plaintiff could not sustain his burden of proof on this essential element of negligence, summary judgment was granted.