 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Brett v. Watts3/20/2001
In a civil action premised on sexual abuse, the jury's verdict that appellant sustained no damages is supported by the evidence and is dispositive of the appeal despite appellant's contention that the district court erred in excluding certain liability evidence. We affirm.
FACTS
Melissa Brett was struck in the head with a softball when she was 15 years old and sustained a subdural hematoma. During the next seven years, she was periodically treated and examined by neurosurgeon Alexander Watts, M.D.
For all examinations except the first, only Watts and Brett were present in the examining room. Watts instructed Brett to remove her outer clothing. It is disputed as to whether he also required her to remove her bra. Watts remained in the room while Brett undressed and while she dressed after the examination. Watts never offered her a gown.
For one of his examination procedures, Watts ran a pinwheel over various parts of Brett's body to detect neurological deficits. Brett alleges that, on at least two occasions, Watts ran the pinwheel over her breasts and also touched her breasts with his hand. It is this alleged touching that Brett claims constituted sexual abuse.
Brett sued Watts and tried the case to a jury. In its special verdict, the jury found that Watts was not liable for sexual abuse and that Brett had not sustained any past damages nor would she sustain any future damages.
Alleging various evidentiary errors, Brett moved for a new trial. The district court denied the motion and Brett appealed.
On appeal, Brett alleges five specific evidentiary errors and also contends that the evidence does not support the verdict.
DECISION
This court reviews alleged specific evidentiary errors only if they were assigned as error in a motion for a new trial. Tyroll v. Private Label Chems., Inc., 505 N.W.2d 54, 56 (Minn. 1993). As to alleged errors not assigned in a motion for a new trial, our review is limited to ascertaining whether the evidence sustains the verdict. Id. at 56.
In her motion for new trial and in this appeal, Brett alleges five specific evidentiary errors. Four relate to liability and one to damages.
As to liability, Brett argues that the district court abused its discretion by excluding from evidence stipulations and orders involving complaints to the medical board about Watts' inappropriate examination procedures; testimony by one of Watts' female patients whose examination experiences were similar to those of Brett; certain testimony by Brett's expert medical witness; and testimony by Brett and others as to how and when Brett discovered that Watts' examination procedures allegedly were improper.
The specific error relating to damages is the district court's alleged refusal to allow Brett to testify about her reaction to her discovery of Watts' improprieties. The only other challenge to damages is Brett's contention that the evidence does not support the verdict. We believe the issue of damages is dispositive of the appeal.
Evidentiary Ruling
On Brett's direct examination, her attorney asked her how she learned of Watts' misconduct. She answered that her mother had seen a report about Watts on television and then had told her of it. Because, in limine, the court had disallowed references to television reports about complaints to the medical board against Watts, the court instructed the jury to "disregard reference to anything on TV." Brett's attorney continued with the examination:
Q: We will move on, Your Honor. What was your reaction?
A: I was overwhelmed. I was in shock. I di
Page 1 2 3 Minnesota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|