 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Wolfington v. Wilson N. Jones Memorial Hospital8/31/2000
In this negligent credentialing case, Anita Wolfington, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Carl Wolfington, Deceased, and William Hall, Wanda Owen, Barbara Choate, Peggy Robb, Abbie Gregg, and Carl Daniel Wolfington, as heirs of the Estate of Carl Wolfington (collectively the Wolfingtons) appeal a judgment in favor of Wilson N. Jones Memorial Hospital (the Hospital) following a jury trial. In four issues, the Wolfingtons generally contend the trial court erred in (1) excluding certain evidence, and (2) denying the Wolfingtons' motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence. We affirm the trial court's judgment.
Background
On September 2, 1994, Carl Wolfington died while he was a patient at the Hospital under the care of Dr. A.G. Noaman. According to the Wolfingtons, he died because of a heart attack caused by a reversible but untreated heart condition. The Wolfingtons sued Noaman for medical malpractice and the Hospital for negligent credentialing. The Wolfingtons and Noaman settled the dispute before trial. Following trial, the jury found that Noaman's negligence, if any, did not cause Carl Wolfington's death. Therefore, the jury did not reach the issue of whether the Hospital was negligent in failing to suspend Noaman's medical privileges. The trial court entered judgment in favor of the Hospital based on the jury verdict. The Wolfingtons appeal.
Evidentiary Issues
1. Agreed Order and Testimony Regarding Noaman's Licensing
In the Wolfingtons' first issue, they claim the trial court erred in excluding evidence that Noaman was not a licensed medical doctor at the time he gave his expert opinions. This evidence was offered in an effort to impeach Noaman's credibility.
Evidence is only admissible when it is relevant. See Tex. R. Evid. 402. Evidence is relevant if it has "any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence." Tex. R. Evid. 401. We review a trial court's determination to exclude evidence under the abuse of discretion standard. See Oddo v. State, 912 S.W.2d 831, 833 (Tex. App._Dallas 1995, writ denied).
Noaman was not a party to the case at the time of trial and did not testify in person at trial. During their presentation of evidence to the jury, the Wolfingtons offered portions of Noaman's videotaped deposition, taken while Noaman was still a party to the case, in which he apparently testified as both an expert witness and a fact witness on his own behalf. The Hospital objected to the trial court showing certain portions of the deposition to the jury, specifically, testimony that Noaman was not licensed to practice medicine at the time he rendered his expert opinions. The trial court sustained the objection.
It appears from the record the Wolfingtons called Noaman at trial as a fact witness, not an expert witness. As a fact witness, Noaman's status as an unlicensed physician after he treated Carl Wolfington was irrelevant to the issue of whether Noaman proximately caused Carl Wolfington's death, the issue decided by the jury. See Tex. R. Evid. 401. Because this evidence was irrelevant, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the evidence. SeeñTex. R. Evid. 402.
However, even if the Wolfingtons called Noaman as an expert witness, we likewise conclude this evidence was irrelevant. As support for their argument that the evidence was admissible to show Noaman's lack of qualification to render an expert opinion, the Wolfingtons cite the Texas Medical Liability and Insurance Improvement Act (the Act). See
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Texas Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|