SHEELEY V. MEMORIAL HOSPITAL
710 A.2d 161 (1998)
NATURE OF THE CASE: This was a malpractice action. Sheeley (P) sued for medical
malpractice committed on her during the birth of her child. The court entered a directed
verdict against P when she could produce a second expert witness after the testimony of her
first expert witness was excluded. P appealed.
FACTS: P gave birth in 1987 and her doctor, performed an episiotomy. P developed
complications at the site of the surgery and sued her doctor (D) and the hospital (D1). A
directed verdict was issued and P appealed; the trial court erred in excluding testimony of
her expert witness, which exclusion resulted in the directed verdict. The expert that P
wanted to testify was excluded under the similar locality rule in that the Dr. practiced in
New York vs. Rhode Island. Current Rhode Island law was interpreted to require the
testifying expert to be in the same medical field as the defendant physician. The court
allowed P a two-day recess to get another expert but that proved impossible. D's then moved
for a directed verdict and got it. P appealed.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment