Dunning v. Kerzner

• Decision Date: 09 January 1990
• Docket Number: No. 89-1645,89-1645
• Citation: 910 F.2d 1009
• Parties: Anita Patenaude DUNNING, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. Marvin S. KERZNER, M.D., et al., Defendants, Appellees. . Heard
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit

Page 1009

910 F.2d 1009

Anita Patenaude DUNNING, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. Marvin S. KERZNER, M.D., et al., Defendants, Appellees.

No. 89-1645.

United States Court of Appeals First Circuit.

Heard Jan. 9, 1990.

Decided Aug. 16, 1990.

R. Daniel Prentiss with whom R. Daniel Prentiss and Associates, Providence, R.I., was on brief, for plaintiff, appellant.

Alan R. Tate with whom Tate & Elias, Providence, R.I., was on brief, for defendants, appellees.

Before TORRUELLA, ALDRICH and CYR, Circuit Judges.

CYR, Circuit Judge.

In the present wrongful death action Anita Patenaude Dunning asserts a medical malpractice claim premised on Dr. Marvin Kerzner's negligent failure to diagnose the colon cancer which precipitated the death of her husband. Following a seven day trial in the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island, the jury returned a verdict for the defendant physician. The plaintiff contends on appeal that certain misapprehensions concerning the scope of a physician's duty of care under Rhode Island law led the district court into a spate of prejudicial rulings which entitle her to a new trial. ¹

I BACKGROUND

Approximately once a year between 1972 and 1978, and again in 1982, plaintiff's decedent, Roger Patenaude, was seen by the defendant, a board-certified specialist in internal medicine. Patenaude's presenting complaints included, at various times, abdominal pain, nausea, gas build-up, and bloody stools. Numerous diagnostic tests were performed, including gastrointestinal and gall bladder series, as well as blood studies, with negative or normal results. Since the outset of the physician-patient relationship and until 1982, Dr. Kerzner attributed Patenaude's complaints to "irritable bowel syndrome." ² In June of 1982 cancer was discovered in Patenaude's large intestine. Patenaude died less than three years later.

In January of 1975 the Lahey Clinic performed tests on Patenaude, including a barium enema. Three months later, during Patenaude's annual visit to Dr. Kerzner, Patenaude complained for the first time of intermittent blood in the stools. Dr. Kerzner performed a guaiac smear test on a stool sample, which did not indicate the presence of blood. Patenaude showed Dr. Kerzner a list of the tests performed at the Lahey Clinic, but the list did not indicate whether or not the barium enema had been performed with or without "air contrast," "air contrast" being the more sensitive technique.

Patenaude visited Dr. Kerzner for routine physical examinations in January of 1976 and in April of 1977. Although Patenaude continued to report digestive disturbances, Dr. Kerzner's notes indicate no complaints of rectal bleeding.

In October of 1978 Patenaude informed Dr. Kerzner that he had been examined at the U.S. Public Health Service ("JFK Clinic") in May of 1978. Dr. Kerzner's notes state:

He is also complaining of some pasty-type blood in his stools intermittently and did have a proctoscope ? sigmoidoscope exam with his government physical exam ... Records will be obtained. Question of repeat sigmoidoscopy will be discussed at that time.

Dr. Kerzner urged Patenaude to obtain the medical records relating to the physical examination at the JFK Clinic. ³ Patenaude did not do so.

Dr. Kerzner did not inform Patenaude of the medical implications of bloody stools, nor did he tell Patenaude that the bleeding could be a symptom of colon cancer. Dr. Kerzner himself continued to believe that cancer was the least likely diagnosis.

Dr. Kerzner testified that Patenaude was a nervous person and that he did not want to alarm him. He considered Patenaude an intelligent person who would follow through and obtain the information from the JFK Clinic.

Patenaude did not visit Dr. Kerzner again until some three and one-half years later, in February 1982. In June of 1982 Patenaude was diagnosed as having a moderately differentiated and invaded adenocarcinoma of the sigmoid colon, which was treated by surgical excision. In June 1983 examination revealed a large liver mass consistent with metastasis of the colon cancer. After unsuccessful chemotherapy, Patenaude died in April of 1985.

At trial, plaintiff called Dr. Kerzner to testify. When Dr. Kerzner was asked whether he had attempted to find out from the Lahey Clinic what type of barium enema had been performed and whether Patenaude had complained to the Lahey Clinic about bloody stools, the district court sustained defendant's objections. ⁴

Plaintiff also called Dr. Jerome DeCosse, a specialist in bowel disease--in particular, cancer of the large colon--as an expert witness. Dr. DeCosse was asked to assume, inter alia, that Dr. Kerzner "strongly urged" Patenaude to have more diagnostic tests and to obtain medical records from the JFK Clinic, but that Kerzner had not followed through on Patenaude's failure to do so. Dr. Kerzner's attorney interposed an objection on the ground that the hypothetical was misleading. ⁵ Although the THE COURT: Well, let's get to it. Is this witness going to tell us that this doctor had the duty to go out to the hospital and get that colonoscopy?

district court was not impressed with the basis offered by defendant's counsel in support of the objection, the following colloquy ensued:

[PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL]: He'll testify that this doctor had the duty to flag that file and to follow it up.

THE COURT: What would he do?

[PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL]: He would write a letter specifically saying, within a month, specifically saying--

THE COURT: Have you got any case that says that he's got such a duty?

[PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL]: I don't think this is a matter of law, Judge, I think it's a matter of opinion testimony.

THE COURT: Now wait a minute, this isn't a dictatorship at this point in time. This is a standard of care.

[PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL]: That's right.

* * * * * *

THE COURT: Well tell me what duty he had.

[PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL]: He had the duty (1) to obtain the records, and (2) to make a specific focused communication to this patient to say, assuming what Kerzner said [concerning his request that Mr. Patenaude obtain his own records] is true, to say it is very important for you to obtain these records or to follow up on this. At least that's what he'll testify to.

* * * * * *

I think that it's not a matter of law, that that, that the question of how far the doctor has to go to communicate to the patient, it's like the question of how much warning do doctors have to give to a patient. It is a question of fact and it's subject to expert opinion, your Honor, and this doctor will testify that given all of those circumstances in that hypothetical Dr. Kerzner had a duty not to just let the file lie flat, that he had a duty to flag that file because this was a symptomatic patient with symptoms indicative of potential cancer which is a deadly disease, and he just couldn't let it go on. I think he's entitled to testify to that, that there is no rule of law that prevents it and that it is subject to opinion testimony.

THE COURT: I'm going to note your statement as an offer of proof and I'm going to sustain the objection.

Later, plaintiff was not permitted to cross-examine defendant's experts as to whether a physician in these circumstances should have followed through to obtain the necessary information from either the Lahey Clinic test or the JFK Clinic examination.

The court instructed the jury on the standard of care owed a patient by a physician, as follows:

The duty Dr. Kerzner owed to Mr. Patenaude was to exercise the same degree of deligence (sic) and skill in his diagnosis and treatment which is commonly possessed by other physicians in the same or similar localities, having due regard for the state of scientific knowledge at the time of treatment.

Medicine is an inexact science. The fact, therefore, if you find it as a fact, that Mr. Patnaude (sic) was injured as a result of the care he received from Dr. Kerzner does not mean that Dr. Kerzner was negligent. Dr. Kerzner can be found liable only if you find by a preponderance of the evidence that he failed to use the same degree of diligence and skill which is commonly exercised by other physicians under the same conditions in the same or similar localities, having due regard for the state of scientific knowledge at the time of the treatment.

You must decide from the evidence which has been presented in this case what that duty of care is and whether or not the defendant in this case complied with that duty of care in treating Mr. Patnaude (sic). If you find that plaintiff has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Dr. Kerzner did not act in accord with the duty of care, as you find it to be, in treating Mr. Patnaude (sic), then you may find that Dr. Kerzner breached his duty to Mr. Patnaude (sic) and acted negligently. Otherwise, plaintiff has failed in the proof and you must find for defendant.

One test that is helpful in determining whether or not a person was negligent and therefore breached a duty owed, is to ask and answer whether or not, if a person of ordinary prudence had been in the same situation as defendant, with the knowledge the defendant possessed or should have possessed through the exercise of ordinary or reasonable care, he would have foreseen or anticipated that someone was likely to have been injured by or as a result of his action or inaction. If such a result from certain conduct would be foreseeable by a person of ordinary prudence with like knowledge and in like situation, and if the conduct reasonably could have been avoided, then not to avoid it would be negligence.

Plaintiff requested the following instruction, which was refused by the court:

[In] instructing Mr. Patenaude to obtain his own medical records, Dr. Kerzner had the duty to explain to him the possible risks and hazards associated with that failure to obtain the records[,] in failure to follow up the symptoms of which he complained so that the patient could make an informed...