Colvin v. Lekas
| Decision Date | 22 June 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. 98-378-M.P.,98-378-M.P. |
| Parties | Sandra L. COLVIN v. Mary D. LEKAS, M.D., et al. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Present WEISBERGER, C.J., and LEDERBERG, BOURCIER, FLANDERS, and GOLDBERG, JJ.
Suzanne M. McGrath, Scott P. Tierney, Providence, for Plaintiff.
Kevin M. Daley, Warwick; J. Renn Olen, John F. Dolan, Thomas D. Gidley, Joseph A. Kelly, Alan R. Tate, Seth Bowerman, Timothy P. Gallogly, Stephen P. Harten, Richard R. Beretta, Jr., Providence, Francis A. Conor, III., Boston, MA, Michael T. Sullivan, James S. D'Ambra, Providence, Robert C. Shindell, Boston, MA, Wendy J. Taylor, Bristol, Scott D. Levesque, West Warwick, Paul F. Galamaga, Providence, for Defendant.
This case comes to us pursuant to the plaintiff's petition for certiorari. We heard this matter for oral arguments on May 21, 1999, pursuant to an order that directed the parties to appear and show cause why the issues raised in this petition should not be summarily decided. After hearing the arguments of counsel and examining the memoranda filed by the parties, we are of the opinion that cause has not been shown and that the issues should be summarily decided at this time.
The plaintiff, Sandra L. Colvin (Colvin), developed throat cancer that she alleges remained undiagnosed. She further alleges that during the course of her treatment, she suffered additional associated incidents of malpractice at the hands of the defendants, West Bay Community Action (West Bay). Approximately two months after suit was commenced, West Bay propounded several interrogatories to Colvin which are at the core of this petition. Interrogatory number four requested that Colvin disclose the identity of any expert witness she had retained to testify and that she disclose the subject matter on which she expected the expert to testify. Although objecting to the breadth of the information sought by West Bay, Colvin responded that
West Bay subsequently filed a motion to compel more responsive answers to interrogatories arguing that Colvin is required to disclose the identity of any experts as soon as they are known by Colvin. West Bay further argued that in accordance with Rule 11 of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure, Colvin must consult with an expert prior to filing the claim and therefore, she must have known the identity of her experts prior to the time her answers to the interrogatories were furnished. The trial justice found this invocation of Rule 11 "distasteful." We find Rule 11 inapplicable to the present controversy. Although Rule 11 may require consultation with an expert prior to the filing of a medical malpractice complaint, it does not require that an expert be retained for testimonial purposes prior to filing the complaint.
After a hearing on this matter, the trial justice declared from the bench that "I'll give you 30 days from now to have hired your expert or to answer: `You do not expect to call an expert to testify.'" The trial justice reinforced his holding when he instructed Colvin "to answer [question] four within 30 days." [P]ursuant to this decision, the trial justice entered a written order...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cranston Police Retirees Action Comm. v. City of Cranston
..." State v. Lead Industries Association, Inc. , 64 A.3d 1183, 1191 (R.I. 2013) (brackets and deletion omitted) (quoting Colvin v. Lekas , 731 A.2d 718, 720 (R.I. 1999) ). We see no abuse of discretion in the trial justice's analysis. We recognize that legislative immunity "does not protect t......
-
Simeone v. Charron
...has broad discretion in granting or denying discovery, such as petitioner's motion to compel more responsive answers. Colvin v. Lekas, 731 A.2d 718, 720 (R.I.1999). This Court will not disturb such decisions relating to discovery save for an abuse of that discretion. Id. Punitive Damages Wh......
-
Martin v. Howard
...against the pending motion to dismiss. The Superior Court has broad discretion to regulate how and when discovery occurs. Colvin v. Lekas, 731 A.2d 718 (R.I.1999); Bashforth v. Zampini, 576 A.2d 1197 (R.I.1990). Thus, Rule 26(c) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure permits the mot......
-
Cranston Police Retirees Action Comm. v. City of Cranston
...State v. Lead Industries Association, Inc., 64 A.3d 1183, 1191 (R.I. 2013) (brackets and deletion omitted) (quoting Colvin v. Lekas, 731 A.2d 718, 720 (R.I. 1999)). We see no abuse of discretion in the trial justice's analysis. We recognize that legislative immunity "does not protect the po......