duty of care the physician owes to a particular patient under the circumstances, and (b) identify! ] the particular(s) wherein the physician breached that duty and caused injury to the plaintiff patient.” Phillips ex rel. Phillips v. Hull, 516 So.2d 488, 491 (Miss.1987) (en banc) (overruled on other grounds by Whittington v. Mason, 905 So.2d 1261 (Miss.2005)). Dr. Sklaroff asserted that Sanders should have been “provided episodic follow-up gastroscopic evaluations,” and that “[i]t was beneath the standard-of-care for such monitoring not to have been offered to the patient during the half-decade” following the first EGD. Dr. Sklaroff did not clarify how often “episodic” evaluations should have taken place. See Hans v. Mem’l Hospital at Gulfport, 40 So.3d 1270, 1280 (Miss.Ct.App.2010) (<HOLDING>). In addition, although Dr. Sklaroff asserts
holding that the defendant could not establish prejudice for trial counsels failure to hire an expert when the experts testimony would not have changed the nature of the states evidence holding that summary disposition was appropriate without some indication in the record as to how further consultation might have affected the results at trial holding that joness application was insufficient because it did not indicate how communication with counsel would have affected trial or how he would have proceeded differently holding that an experts report failed to establish the standard of care when it did not clarify how soon is soon  what would be considered an appropriate disposition  and how any other procedure would have reduced delay holding due process claim failed because plaintiff failed to explain how confrontation and crossexamination would have changed the outcome of his hearing