 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Manning v. Bellafiore11/4/2005
DECISION (RELATIVE TO POST TRIAL MOTIONS)
This matter is before the Court post trial, on the motions of plaintiffs for a new trial and motion for defendants for judgment as a matter of law. The trial in this case ensued over 33 trial days from January 5, 2004 through March 3, 2004 in which 21 separate witnesses testified. In the end, the jury returned a verdict in the defendants' favor.
Facts of the Case
Michael Manning was a 41 year old man, married with four children. On March 4, 1998, he complained of headaches and apparently suffered a significant stroke. He was taken to South County Hospital where he continued treatment under the care of Dr. McNiece, a Doctor of Internal Medicine and Dr. Bellafiore, a Neurologist. On March 9, 1998, Mr. Manning suffered a more massive stroke, was transferred to Massachusetts General Hospital and passed away.
Standard on Motion for New Trial
The Rhode Island Supreme Court has stated:
The trial judge should set out some material, factual evidence or absence thereof, direct or circumstantial upon which his or her ruling is based as noted . . . 'the trial justice need not analyze all the evidence presented but should [however] state the motivation for his or her ruling.' State v. Vorgvongsa, 670 A.2d 1250, 1252 (R.I. 1996). Citations omitted.
In Parkhurst v. Autieri, 828 A.2d 518, 519 (R.I. 2003) the Supreme Court encouraged the trial justice, when considering a motion for a new trial, to review the facts of the case referring with specificity to enough facts on which to base his or her decision. Accordingly, it is appropriate to review the extensive testimony produced at trial.
On a motion for new trial, the trial justice must "independently weigh, and evaluate the credibility of the trial witnesses and evidence." Wellborn v. Spurwink/Rhode Island, 873 A.2d 884, 887 (R.I. 2005), Graff v. Motta, 748 A.2d 249, 255 (R.I. 2000) (citing Morrocco v. Piccardi, 713 A.2d 250, 253 (R.I. 1998). "If the trial justice determines that the evidence is evenly balanced or is such that reasonable minds in considering that same evidence could come to different conclusions, the trial justice must allow the verdict to stand." Graff, 748 A.2d at 255. The trial justice should allow the verdict to stand "even though he may entertain some doubt regarding its correctness." Marcotte v. Harrison, 443 A.2d 1225, 1232 (R.I. 1982). See also Oliviero v. Jacobson. 846 A.2d 822, 826 (R.I. 2004).
The plaintiffs' first witness was Jill M. Angel, an Emergency Medical Technician, who arrived at the Manning home shortly after Michael collapsed on the morning of March 4, 1998. She determined that his headache was not normal and indicated in her report the need to eliminate the head bleed. Michael was transported to the South County Memorial Hospital Emergency Room.
Plaintiffs then called Dr. Donald McNiece, a Defendant. Dr. McNiece has a general practice with regular privileges at the South County Hospital. He had provided general care for Mr. Manning in the past. He was not the only physician who treated Mr. Manning, but one of the first to treat him at the hospital. He recognized that Michael Manning was entitled to the doctor's "independent medical judgment" during his course of treatment. Dr. McNiece acknowledged that he was the admitting physician, and had a responsibility for the patient in exercising final say over his care and treatment. However, he deferred to Dr. Bellafiore for his expertise and failed to consult with any other Neurologist.
Under questioning as an adverse witness, Dr. McNiece described his function was to establish differential diagnoses and r
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Rhode Island Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|