 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hodgdon v. Frisbie Memorial Hospital12/11/2001
Stein responded by explaining the range of demands on his work schedule, the friction between himself and the former director of the emergency room, and the shortage of physicians to staff the emergency room at that time. Plaintiff's counsel thereafter questioned him about another sentence in the letter that suggested Dr. Stein's work schedule had been changed at his request so that he could watch the Super Bowl. The defendants again objected, and the trial judge sustained this objection.
Evidence is relevant if it has "any tendency" to prove a fact that is "of consequence." N.H. R. Ev. 401. The evidence from Dr. Stein's personnel file was irrelevant. The incidents described apparently occurred a year earlier and simply had no bearing on the contents of the conversation between Dr. Stein and Dr. Goldblatt. Whether Dr. Stein was or was not reluctant to work extra shifts was unrelated to what was said on the phone a year later.
The erroneous admission of this evidence does not, however, require reversal. See Francoeur, 146 N.H. at ___, 776 A.2d at 1276. The evidence was wholly unrelated to the core issues in the case. In addition, Dr. Stein's lengthy answer explaining the contents of the letter blunted the irrelevant information that plaintiff's counsel injected into the case. Finally, the trial judge quickly ended the plaintiff's foray into this area, and no mention was made of this evidence in closing argument. Although admitting this evidence was a substantial error, the record supports the plaintiff's assertion that the error was harmless.
V. Plaintiff's Closing Argument
Finally, the defendants assert that the trial court allowed the plaintiff to argue improperly in closing that the physician's assistant, who had been dismissed from the case, was at fault, thereby impermissibly implying that the remaining defendants should be responsible for her alleged fault. At the close of the plaintiff's case, the court dismissed the case against the physician's assistant after finding that the plaintiff's only expert was not qualified to offer opinion evidence as to the appropriate standard of care for a physician's assistant. The defendants objected when the plaintiff's counsel in closing argued:
And it's some mystical experience that the doctors and hospital in control of. And do they control this situation? Did they do what had to be done, both Robbie Corriss and Dr. Stein. Dr. Stein has to supervise and direct Robbie Corriss, so let's look at what took place, and was that an adequate examination.
The defendants contend that the argument was improper because Corriss had been dismissed as a defendant and the plaintiff did not specifically allege Dr. Stein was negligent on a separate theory of respondeat superior. The essence of the plaintiff's argument, however, was that Dr. Stein himself was responsible because he did not make sure that Corriss completed all the examinations necessary for him to make a proper diagnosis. Further, the trial court reminded the jury that "the case against Miss Corriss ha been dismissed" and explained that the hospital could be liable only for Dr. Stein's alleged negligence, but not based on any alleged conduct by Corriss. Therefore, any implication that the defendants may be liable based on Corriss' negligence was cured by the court's instruction. Under these circumstances, any error or prejudice was harmless and, therefore, we will not disturb the jury's verdict. See Blais v. Town of Goffstown, 119 N.H. 613, 619-20 (1979).
Affirmed.
BROCK, C.J., and BRODERICK and DALIANIS, JJ., concurred.
|