 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Freitas v. Alaska Radiology Associates11/14/2003
I. INTRODUCTION
Donna and Daniel Freitas sued Alaska Radiology Associates, Inc. and Dr. Janice M. Anderson, alleging that they committed medical malpractice in 1996 by failing to detect cancerous lesions depicted on Donna Freitas's mammograms. The jury found for the defendants. The Freitases argue that it was error to permit Dr. Denise Farleigh to testify about the practice Alaska Radiology followed in positioning patients during mammograms and the training its mammogram technologists received; they reason that this was opinion evidence that should have been disclosed before trial and that it unfairly raised new topics. But under the circumstances presented here, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting this testimony. The Freitases also argue that Jury Instruction No. 18 misled the jury. Because they did not raise this objection at trial, they did not preserve this issue, and we conclude that it was not plain error to give this instruction. We therefore affirm the judgment below.
II. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
Donna Freitas obtained a screening mammogram in November 1996. Dr. Janice M. Anderson, a radiologist under contract with Alaska Radiology Associates, Inc., read the mammogram and declared it "stable." Fourteen months later Freitas felt a lump in her breast and obtained another mammogram. Dr. Anderson read the new mammogram and observed a relatively large density. She ordered follow-up testing which revealed that Freitas had a virulent form of breast cancer with lymph node involvement and metastases. An oncologist later testified that Freitas has "virtually no chance" for long-term disease-free survival or for long-term survival.
Freitas and her husband Daniel sued Dr. Anderson and Alaska Radiology, for whom Dr. Anderson is an independent contractor. They alleged that Dr. Anderson negligently interpreted Freitas's 1996 mammogram.
After a nine-day trial, a jury returned a verdict finding that the defendants had not been negligent. The superior court entered judgment for the defendants.
The Freitases argue on appeal that the superior court abused its discretion by allowing Dr. Denise Farleigh to testify about breast positioning during mammograms at Alaska Radiology. They also contend that the superior court erred as a matter of law by giving Jury Instruction No. 18. They ask us to reverse the judgment and remand for a new trial.
III. DISCUSSION
A. Standard of Review
We review for an abuse of discretion a decision of the superior court to admit or exclude evidence. "We will reverse a trial court's evidentiary ruling only when we are left with a definite and firm conviction that the trial court erred in its decision."
A challenge to a jury instruction presents a question of law that we review de novo. If no timely objection to the jury instruction was made, we will only review the instruction for plain error. We will find plain error in jury instructions only when there is an "obvious mistake creating `a high likelihood that the jury will follow an erroneous theory resulting in a miscarriage of justice.' "
B. The Superior Court Did Not Err in Allowing Dr. Farleigh To Testify About Positioning During Mammography at Alaska Radiology or About the Training Its Technologists Receive.
The Freitases contend that it was an abuse of discretion to permit Dr. Farleigh to testify about how Alaska Radiology technologists position patients during mammograms. At the time of trial Dr. Farleigh was the supervising radiologist for mammography at Alaska Radiology Associates, Inc. and its former president; she was also director of
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Alaska Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|