 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Zakour v. UT Medical Group10/31/2005
ry decision if it does not rest on an adequate evidentiary foundation or if it is contrary to the governing law, we will not substitute our judgment for that of the trial court merely because we might have chosen another alternative.
The trial court found that the Defendants listed a representative of UTMG in their initial response to the Plaintiff's interrogatories, therefore providing the Plaintiff an opportunity to depose a UTMG corporate representative prior to trial. As required under Rule 26.05, the Defendants amended their responses to include the name of the specific UTMG representative, two days prior to calling Ms. Goehring as a witness. The trial court gave the Plaintiff an opportunity to speak to Ms. Goehring prior to her taking the stand. Based on these facts, we find that the trial court properly applied the legal principles in allowing the witness, Alisa Goehring, to testify. Accordingly, we find no error by the trial court in allowing the testimony of Ms. Goehring.
Plaintiff next questions whether reversible error was committed when the trial court limited the cross examination of Ms. Goehring by the Plaintiff's counsel. Plaintiff asserts that she should have been allowed to cross examine Ms. Goehring, the UTMG Manager of Contract and Legal Services, regarding the financial structure of UTMG, and the compensation of its physicians. In a bench conference prior to Ms. Goehring's testimony, Plaintiff's counsel stated that if Ms. Goehring was allowed to testify that UTMG was a non-profit corporation and its mission was patient care, research and the training of doctors, the Plaintiff should be able to counter that testimony with information regarding the compensation of UTMG's physicians and the UTMG physician incentive programs. Plaintiff made an offer of proof in the form of an Advisory Opinion written by the PWBA Office of Regulation and Interpretations in reference to a proposed UTMG Key Employee Incentive Plan. The offer of proof gave information about a proposed plan that UTMG considered establishing to motivate its physicians and to increase revenues and retention of physicians by UTMG. Plaintiff stated that if Ms. Goehring was allowed to testify as to the "good will" of the Defendant UTMG that she should be "entitled to show that there's more than research and training going on; there's profit involved." The trial court responded to Plaintiff's request as to the scope of Ms. Goehring's testimony and cross examination by stating:
The Court would not consider it relevant . . . that is, the gross income of UT Medical Group. . . . I don't think that would be relevant for the issues that the jury has to decide.
Even with a nonprofit company , one would expect that the doctors that participate there do draw a salary and do make money. The church I attend is very nonprofit, but we still pay the pastor, and I think the jurors are aware of that. In any event, none of this is relevant to the issues that the jury has to decide.
Again, it's been alleged in Complaint, admitted in Answer, that the various doctors were employees of UT Medical Group, so there's really nothing with regard to the agency for the jury to decide.
Ms. Goehring testified and the court sustained the objections on both direct and cross examination when counsel asked questions referring to the compensation of UTMG physicians. The trial court was evenhanded in its rulings, prohibiting either party from addressing financial matters of UTMG or its physicians. As stated above, admissibility of evidence rests within the sound discretion of the trial court, and will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of an abuse of that discretion. From our examination of this
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|