 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hodgdon v. Frisbie Memorial Hospital12/11/2001
Strafford
In this medical malpractice case, the defendants, Frisbee Memorial Hospital and Geoffrey Stein, M.D., appeal from a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff, Agnes Hodgdon. They argue that the Trial Court (T. Nadeau, J.) erred in: (1) allowing an ophthalmologist to testify as to the standard of care for an emergency room physician; (2) ruling that there was sufficient evidence to prove that Dr. Stein's alleged negligence was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury ; (3) admitting into evidence a chart showing excerpts of a witness's testimony written by plaintiff's counsel as he examined the witness; (4) admitting into evidence certain documents from Dr. Stein's personnel file; and (5) allowing plaintiff's counsel in closing argument to say that the jury could find the doctor negligent for his failure to supervise the physician's assistant working with him in the emergency room. We affirm.
On Sunday, October 11, 1998, the plaintiff was brought to the emergency room at Frisbie Memorial Hospital for treatment of a blunt trauma injury to her right eye. Her eye was bruised and swollen shut. She was examined by Robbie Corriss, a physician's assistant and then by the emergency room physician, Geoffrey Stein. Dr. Stein diagnosed the injury as a subconjunctival hemorrhage with a differential diagnosis of hyphema. He discharged Mrs. Hodgdon instructing her to apply ice, to take Tylenol and to see her primary care physician on Monday and, if necessary, an ophthalmologist, on Tuesday. When she saw the ophthalmologist, he diagnosed a retrobulbar hemorrhage. Eventually, Mrs. Hodgdon lost vision in her right eye. At trial, she claimed Dr. Stein was negligent when he failed to properly diagnose and treat her condition, thereby causing her to lose vision, which otherwise she would not have lost. Following a jury verdict in her favor, the defendants filed this appeal.
I. Expert Testimony
The defendants first argue that the trial court erred in allowing the plaintiff's expert, Dr. Kuldip Vaid, an ophthalmologist, to give an expert opinion regarding the appropriate standard of care for an emergency room physician as required by RSA 507-E:2, I (1997). RSA 507-E:2, I(a) provides:
In any action for medical injury , the plaintiff shall have the burden of proving by affirmative evidence which must include expert testimony of a competent witness or witnesses:
(a) The standard of reasonable professional practice in the medical care provider's profession or specialty thereof, if any, at the time the medical care in question was rendered.
Under Rule of Evidence 702, "a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto . . . ." In deciding whether to qualify a witness as an expert, the trial judge must conduct an adequate investigation of the expert's qualifications. Mankoski v. Briley, 137 N.H. 308, 313 (1993). Because the trial judge has the opportunity to hear and observe the witness, the decision whether a witness qualifies as an expert is within the trial judge's discretion. See Bissett v. Renna, 142 N.H. 788, 791 (1998). On appeal that decision will not be reversed unless the trial judge clearly abused her discretion. Id.
The trial court qualified the plaintiff's expert to testify "as an expert in ophthalmology and an expert in emergency room care as it pertains to ophthalmology only." The defendants contend that while Dr. Vaid is an ophthalmologist, he is not qualified to testify about emergency room care because he had no training as an emergency room physician. They specifically contend that Dr. Vaid is not qualified to testify whether an emergency room physic
Page 1 2 3 4 5 New Hampshire Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|