78 Hawai'i 287, Craft v. Peebles, 16577
| Citation | 78 Hawaii 287,893 P.2d 138 |
| Decision Date | 11 April 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 16577,16577 |
| Parties | 78 Hawai'i 287 Teena A. CRAFT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lawrence A. PEEBLES, M.D., Lawrence A. Peebles, M.D., Inc., Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company, McGhan Medical Corporation (a Delaware corporation), and McGhan Medical Corporation (a California corporation), Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Hawai'i |
Peter Van Name Esser of Peterson & Esser, Honolulu, for plaintiff-appellant.
John S. Nishimoto (Ronald D. Libkuman and Diane W. Wong of Libkuman, Ventura, Ayabe, Chong & Nishimoto, with him on the brief), Honolulu, for defendants-appellees Lawrence A. Peebles, M.D. and Lawrence A. Peebles, M.D., Inc.
David J. Dezzani (Margaret C. Jenkins and Sara Shirin Razani of Goodsill Anderson Quinn & Stifel, with him on the brief), Honolulu, for defendants-appellees Minnesota Min. and Mfg., Co. and McGahn Medical Corp.
Before MOON, C.J., and KLEIN, NAKAYAMA and RAMIL, JJ., and TOWN, Circuit Judge, in place of LEVINSON, J., recused.
Plaintiff-appellant Teena A. Craft appeals from the judgment entered pursuant to special verdict following a jury trial in the Third Circuit Court. In her action for personal injuries associated with breast prostheses she had surgically implanted into her body, Craft alleged: (1) negligence and lack of informed consent against defendant-appellee Lawrence Peebles, M.D. (Dr. Peebles); and (2) negligence, strict products liability, and breach of warranty against defendants-appellees Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company and its wholly-owned subsidiary, McGhan Medical Corporation [hereinafter collectively, McGhan].
Prior to trial, the circuit court had granted Dr. Peebles' motion for partial summary judgment, dismissing Craft's negligence claim against him. Craft subsequently withdrew her breach of warranty claim against McGhan. By special verdict, the jury found in favor of Dr. Peebles and McGhan on all of
[78 Hawai'i 291] the remaining issues. Specifically, the jury found that, although McGhan's implants were "defective or negligently manufactured," the implants were not the legal cause of Craft's injuries. For the reasons stated below, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
In 1980, while living in Florida, Craft decided to undergo breast augmentation surgery and sought the advice of several Florida physicians in order to determine the best method of breast implant insertion. Craft, who at the time was 21 years old, chose Dr. Dale Dubin, whose armpit-incision method of insertion minimized scarring or evidence of surgery. On March 25, 1980, Dr. Dubin performed the breast augmentation surgery, inserting two silicone gel-filled breast implants manufactured by McGhan into Craft's breast-cavity. Craft was pleased with the results of the surgery.
From 1980 to 1982, Craft made several visits to Dr. Dubin. The first few visits were for follow-up after the surgery, and the later visits concerned scar tissue build-up in her armpit area that eventually disappeared. In late 1982, she noticed that her right breast was hardening; however, she did not think the problem warranted a visit to the doctor. Also, in 1982, Craft moved to Kailua-Kona.
On October 9, 1984, Craft saw Dr. Peebles, a general surgeon in Kona, for treatment of an infected cyst on her back, a problem unrelated to her breast implants. She advised Dr. Peebles of her breast augmentation, the hardness in her right breast, and that she was lactating. Craft testified that Dr. Peebles diagnosed her problem as a "capsular contracture" 1 and offered to "fix it right there" by a non-surgical procedure known as a "closed capsulotomy." 2
Dr. Peebles testified that he gave Craft three options. He could: (1) perform a closed capsulotomy; (2) perform an open capsulotomy; 3 or (3) do nothing. Dr. Peebles testified that he warned Craft that the attendant risks of a closed capsulotomy were bruising, rupture of the implant, and recurrence of the capsular contracture. However, Craft denied having received such warnings. On October 9, 1984, Peebles performed a closed capsulotomy on Craft's right breast.
Dr. Peebles testified that, after placing Craft on her back, he placed his hands around her right breast and squeezed with enough pressure so that a "pop" of the capsular contracture could be heard. He described the audible "pop" as the sound of the capsule tearing. Craft, on the other hand, testified that Dr. Peebles' first attempt failed. On his second attempt, she heard a "pop" and then felt a painful sensation throughout her chest area. Dr. Peebles testified that he did not know whether this procedure ruptured Craft's right breast implant, but admitted that it was a possibility.
Dr. Peebles testified that he saw Craft on October 15, 1984, and January 2, 1985, regarding her complaints of tenderness and lumps on her right breast. Dr. Peebles diagnosed the lumps as "galactoceles," or collections Dissatisfied with Dr. Peebles, Craft sought a new physician, and on September 28, 1985, began treatment with Dr. Robert Schulz, a plastic surgeon in Honolulu. Dr. Schulz testified that he saw Craft approximately twenty times and operated on Craft four or five times to remove silicone "granulomas" 4 in the areas surrounding her breasts.
[78 Hawai'i 292] of milk in the breasts of women whose milk ducts clog during lactation. After further examining Craft on February 7, 1985, and March 4, 1985, Dr. Peebles determined that Craft's right implant had ruptured. He performed an open capsulotomy on Craft on April 2, 1985. Dr. Peebles removed about two-thirds of the ruptured shell of the implant from Craft's breast cavity and assumed the remaining one-third had dissolved. He also removed the loose silicone from the breast pocket and inserted a new breast implant also manufactured by McGhan. Craft remained under his care through June 6, 1985.
Meanwhile, pursuant to Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS) chapter 671, Craft filed a claim against Dr. Peebles with the Medical Claims Conciliation Panel (MCCP). On July 7, 1987, after her case was heard and decided by the MCCP, 5 Craft filed a complaint in the present case in the Third Circuit Court pursuant to HRS § 671-16.
In September 1991, during a biopsy, Dr. Schulz noticed free-flowing silicone and determined that Craft's right breast implant had ruptured again. Although Dr. Schulz replaced Craft's right implant at that time, by 1992, Craft had all implants removed. Dr. Schulz testified, however, that Craft may need more treatment in the future because free silicone in the body "is a kind of a chronic problem."
During the period from 1984 through 1991, Craft had been treated by physicians other than Drs. Peebles and Schulz for problems unrelated to her breast implants. Dr. Clifton Arrington, a general practitioner, testified that he treated Craft for stress-related problems resulting from, among other things, her abusive husband, her arrests for possession of narcotics and theft, the death of her friend, and her recalcitrant daughter.
On June 5, 1992, Dr. Peebles filed a motion for partial summary judgment seeking dismissal of: (1) Craft's negligence claim, alleging that Craft failed to establish the applicable standard of care through expert testimony; and (2) Craft's claim for punitive damages, alleging that there was no indication that Dr. Peebles acted wantonly or maliciously. The trial court granted in part and denied in part Dr. Peebles' motion, dismissing Craft's negligence claim, but allowing Craft's punitive damages claim to continue.
On July 14, 1992, Craft filed four motions in limine to exclude: (1) unclothed photographs that depicted any part of her body other than her upper body; (2) evidence and testimony relating to her criminal record; (3) evidence and testimony of her alleged substance abuse; and (4) evidence and testimony of her allegedly abusive spouse. The trial court granted the motions with respect to the photos and the alleged substance abuse; however, because the evidence regarding her criminal record and her allegedly abusive spouse was "relevant to the claim of mental distress" or "mental anguish," the court denied the motion with respect to such evidence. We note, however, that during the trial, the court allowed the defense to cross-examine Craft regarding her alleged substance abuse, over objection.
McGhan filed a motion in limine to bar Craft's introduction of approximately 3,700 Product Field Reports (PFRs) 6 obtained from McGhan by Craft during discovery, and Craft filed a corresponding motion to permit McGhan also filed a motion in limine to restrict Talcott's testimony to matters within his area of expertise so as to prohibit his opinions regarding medical problems associated with silicone breast implants. The motion was granted during the trial at which time the court ruled that Talcott could not testify about the "effects of silicone on the human body with regard to migration." 7
[78 Hawai'i 293] introduction of the PFRs. The trial court did not issue a ruling on this motion until the issue arose during trial. At trial, the court ruled that the PFRs could be relied upon by Craft's expert engineer, Thomas Talcott, to formulate his opinions, and that the defense could utilize the PFRs during cross-examination. The court, however, would not allow a wholesale admission of all 3,700 PFRs.
The four-week jury trial commenced on July 21, 1992. On August 11, 1992, the trial court directed a verdict in favor of Dr. Peebles with respect to Craft's claim for punitive damages. The court also directed a verdict in favor of Dr. Peebles and McGhan with respect to Craft's claim for special damages. On August 14, 1992, Craft withdrew her breach of warranty claim against McGhan. Thereafter, the jury began its deliberations on the remaining issues of Craft's claim of lack of informed consent against Dr. Peebles and her claim for negligence and strict products...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vitanza v. Upjohn Co.
...v. Sandoz Pharmaceuticals Corp)., 226 Ga. App. 547, 548, 487 S.E.2d 70, cert, denied, 227 Ga. App. 912 (1997); Craft v. Peebles, 78 Haw. 287, 304, 893 P.2d 138 (1995); Martin v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., 169 111. 2d 234, 238-39, 661 N.E.2d 352 (1996); Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. v. Chapman......
-
Shanghai Inv. Co., Inc. v. Alteka Co., Ltd., No. 20709.
..."It is well settled that objections not raised or properly preserved at trial will not be considered on appeal." Craft v. Peebles, 78 Hawai`i 287, 294, 893 P.2d 138, 145 (1995) (citing MPM Hawaiian, Inc. v. Amigos, Inc., 63 Haw. 485, 630 P.2d 1075 (1981)); see also Pele Defense Fund v. Paty......
-
In re Norplant Contraceptive Products Liab. Lit.
... ... at 710 (citation omitted), aff'd, 165 F.3d at 377-78 ... If Defendants satisfy their initial ... (11) Hawaii Craft v. Peebles, 893 P.2d 138 (Haw.1995) ... ...
-
Larkin v. Pfizer, Inc., No. 2002-SC-0746-CL.
...(Fla.1989); Georgia: Hawkins v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc., 147 Ga.App. 481, 249 S.E.2d 286, 288 (1978); Hawaii: Craft v. Peebles, 78 Hawai'i 287, 893 P.2d 138, 155-56 (1995) (adopting learned intermediary rule for silicone breast Illinois: Kirk v. Michael Reese Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 117 Ill.2d ......
-
CHAPTER § 9.03 The Learned-Intermediary Doctrine
...Inc., 540 So.2d 102, 104 (Fla. 1989). Georgia: McCombs v. Synthes, 587 S.E.2d 594, 595 (Ga. 2003). Hawaii: Craft v. Peebles, 893 P.2d 138, 155-56 (Haw. 1995). Idaho: Sliman v. Aluminum Co. of Am., 731 P.2d 1267, 1270 (Idaho 1986). Illinois: Kirk v. Michael Reese Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 513 N.E.2......
-
Case Notes
...generally, and also explained the significance of the information in the manufacturer's insert. Moreover, pursuant to Craft v. Peebles, 78 Hawaii 287, 893 P.2d 138 (1995), although a manufacturer's insert cannot, on its own, satisfy a plaintiff's burden of producing expert testimony to esta......