Erickson v. Robert F. Kerr, M.D., P.S., Inc.

• Decision Date: 10 November 1994
• Docket Number: No. 61023-1,61023-1
• Citation: 125 Wn.2d 183,883 P.2d 313
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: Andrew ERICKSON, for himself and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Phillipa Erickson, and Craig Erickson, Respondents, v. ROBERT F. KERR, M.D. P.S., INC., a Washington professional corporation, and Robert F. Kerr and Jane Doe Kerr, husband and wife, Petitioners.

Page 183

125 Wn.2d 183

883 P.2d 313

Andrew ERICKSON, for himself and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Phillipa Erickson, and Craig Erickson, Respondents, v. ROBERT F. KERR, M.D. P.S., INC., a Washington professional corporation, and Robert F. Kerr and Jane Doe Kerr husband and wife, Petitioners.

No. 61023-1.

Supreme Court of Washington En Banc.

Nov. 10, 1994.

Lane, Powell, Spears & Lubersky, Craig L. McIvor, Michael B. King, Seattle, for petitioners.

C.F. Vulliet & Associates, C.F. Vulliet, Susan V. Wright, Seattle, for respondents.

DOLLIVER, Justice.

Petitioner, Dr. Robert Kerr, seeks review of the Court of Appeals reversal of a jury verdict in his favor in a medical malpractice suit arising from the suicide of Phillipa Erickson. Andrew Erickson commenced an action as personal representative of the estate and a wrongful death action on behalf of himself and his son, Craig Erickson. The suit alleges Dr. Kerr was negligent in failing properly to diagnose and treat Mrs. Erickson's clinical depression. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

Dr. Kerr was Phillipa Erickson's family physician since 1969. Until her suicide on March 9, 1987, Dr. Kerr treated Mrs. Erickson for high blood pressure, insomnia, menopause, and mild depression. He prescribed various medications for these conditions, including Seconal, a barbiturate used to induce sleep, Halcion, a benzodiazepene similar to Valium, Inderal and Tenormin, high blood pressure medications, estrogen, and Asendin, an antidepressant.

During this time, Mrs. Erickson periodically complained of depression. Dr. Kerr felt the depressed mood was a reaction to the Inderal or related to stress at home. In March 1986, based on Mrs. Erickson's continuing complaints of depression, Dr. Kerr prescribed the antidepressant, Asendin. Around this time, Mrs. Erickson was also taking increased dosages of Halcion. The recommended dosage for adults is .25-to-.50 milligrams per day. In May 1986, her dosage was increased from .50 milligrams per day to .75 milligrams per day. Depression is a side effect of Halcion, and its manufacturer recommends that Halcion not be prescribed for more than a month to avoid dependence.

At the end of 1986 and in early 1987, Mrs. Erickson was visiting Dr. Kerr's office frequently for checkups, sometimes on a biweekly basis. During this time, family and friends noticed Mrs. Erickson becoming withdrawn. Mr. Erickson became concerned about his wife's health and made several phone calls to Dr. Kerr who responded that he was treating her for depression and would adjust her medication as needed. Mr. Erickson also contacted Dr. Sako, Mrs. Erickson's dentist, who advised him she needed a thorough physical.

On February 6, Dr. Kerr discontinued the Asendin, and on February 20, he wrote her a prescription for a 3-month supply of Seconal. On March 6, he renewed her prescription for Halcion and adjusted her blood pressure medication. Three days later on March 9, 1987, Mrs. Erickson committed suicide by overdosing on Seconal.

Following Mrs. Erickson's death, Dr. Kerr asked Andrew Erickson how his wife was doing, apparently forgetting she had died.

The Ericksons brought suit alleging Dr. Kerr was negligent in failing to diagnose and treat Mrs. Erickson's clinical depression. The negligence claim was based primarily upon Dr. Kerr's medical records chronicling his treatment of Mrs. Erickson.

The Ericksons moved in limine, pursuant to the deadman statute, RCW 5.60.030, to exclude any testimony by Dr. Kerr regarding any conversations he had with Mrs. Erickson. The trial court denied the motion, ruling the plaintiffs had to rely on Dr. Kerr's medical records as part of their case in chief and thus waived the statute's protection. The trial court also admitted testimony from Mrs. Erickson's friend and neighbor, Anne DeLaurenti-Newton, concerning the Ericksons' marriage and excluded evidence regarding Dr. Kerr's failure to remember Mrs. Erickson's death.

The trial court gave the pattern instructions defining a physician's negligence and duty of care, but did not give three additional instructions proposed by the Ericksons.

The jury found Dr. Kerr was not negligent, and both parties appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed, and this court granted Dr. Kerr's petition for review. The Ericksons' cross petition was treated as an answer raising additional issues. The Ericksons moved to submit a reply to Dr. Kerr's supplemental brief and filed an emergency motion to supplement the record. These motions were passed to the merits.

The first issue is whether the Ericksons waived the protection of the deadman statute, RCW 5.60.030, by introducing Dr. Kerr's medical records concerning his treatment of Mrs. Erickson. RCW 5.60.030 provides:

[I]n an action or proceeding where the adverse party sues or defends as executor, administrator or legal representative of any deceased person, or as deriving right or title by, through or from any deceased person, ... then a party in interest or to the record, shall not be admitted to testify in his or her own behalf as to any transaction had by him or her with, or any statement made to him or her, or in his or her presence, by any such deceased ... person....

The purpose of the statute is to "prevent interested parties from giving self-serving testimony about conversations or transactions with the decedent." Wildman v. Taylor, 46 Wash.App. 546, 549, 731 P.2d 541 (1987). The statute may be waived if the adverse party introduces testimony on direct or cross examination regarding the transaction in question. Zvolis v. Condos, 56 Wash.2d 275, 277, 352 P.2d 809 (1960); O'Steen v. Estate of Wineberg, 30 Wash.App. 923, 935, 640 P.2d 28 (1982). See generally 5A K. Tegland, Wash.Prac., Witnesses § 216 (1989 & Supp.1994). The issue is whether the introduction of documentary evidence, in this case Dr. Kerr's medical records regarding his treatment of Mrs. Erickson, also constitutes a waiver of the deadman statute.

In the past, we have held that records kept in the ordinary course of business are not excluded under the deadman statute. See Ah How v. Furth, 13 Wash. 550, 43 P. 639 (1896); Goldsworthy v. Oliver, 93 Wash. 67, 73, 160 P. 4 (1916); Sanborn v. Dentler, 97 Wash. 149, 154-57, 166 P. 62 (1917). See also Vogt v. Hovander, 27 Wash.App. 168, 616 P.2d 660 (1979). The objective nature of such records made prior to any motive for fabrication obviates the statute's protection against self-serving statements. See Goldsworthy v. Oliver, supra.

We have also held the deadman statute does not apply to documents written or executed by the deceased. See Hampton v. Gilleland, 61 Wash.2d 537, 543, 379 P.2d 194 (1963); Denis v. Metzenbaum, 124 Wash. 86, 213 P. 453 (1923); Slavin v. Ackman, 119 Wash. 48, 204 P. 816 (1922); Goldsworthy v. Oliver, supra; Kauffman v. Baillie, 46 Wash. 248, 89 P. 548 (1907). See also Wildman, 46 Wash.App. at 553, 731 P.2d 541. But see King v. Clodfelter, 10 Wash.App. 514, 518 P.2d 206 (1974).

More recently, the Court of Appeals extended this rule to include other documents relating to the transaction at issue. See Thor v. McDearmid, 63 Wash.App. 193, 817 P.2d 1380 (1991) (waiver by introduction of letter written to decedent); Bentzen v. Demmons, 68 Wash.App. 339, 842 P.2d 1015 (1993) (waiver by submission of affidavit of decedent's son regarding transaction in support of summary judgment).

In resolving this case, however, we need not address the deadman statute's applicability to documentary evidence in general. Here, we are concerned only with its effect on the introduction of Dr. Kerr's medical records.

The Ericksons contend the medical records were admissible under the business records exception to the deadman statute. We agree. To qualify for admission under the business records exception, records must be " 'kept in the usual course of business, and hence in no manner self-serving.' " Vogt, 27 Wash.App. at 176, 616 P.2d 660 (quoting McDonald v. McDonald, 119 Wash. 396, 403, 206 P. 23 (1922)). See RCW 5.45.020. Dr. Kerr's testimony reflects the entries were made contemporaneously with his treatment of Mrs. Erickson and in the usual course of his medical practice. The medical records are also not self-serving, being introduced by the Ericksons in support of their claims.

Dr. Kerr asserts, however, that it is fundamentally unfair for the estate to admit the medical records, draw factual inferences therefrom by use of expert witnesses, and then invoke the statutory bar to silence any reply. Commentators have long disfavored deadman statutes for similar reasons. See, e.g., 1 J. Strong, Evidence § 65, at 251 (4th ed. 1992); 2 J. Wigmore, Evidence §§ 578-80 (Chadbourn rev. 1979). Any argument on this score, however, is more properly brought before the Legislature. We note the two cases cited by Dr. Kerr in support of his position rely on a statutory exception to the Illinois Dead Man's Act. See Hoem v. Zia, 159 Ill.2d 193, 201 Ill.Dec. 47, 636 N.E.2d 479 (1994); Haist v. Wu, 235 Ill.App.3d 799, 176 Ill.Dec. 229, 601 N.E.2d 927 (1992) (both cases cite Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 110, para. 8-201(a) (1981)). Moreover, both parties may retain experts to make inferences based on admitted medical records. Testimony by third parties is not excluded under the statute; only "part[ies] in interest" are precluded from testifying on their own behalf. RCW 5.60.030; Rabb v. Estate of McDermott, 60 Wash.App. 334, 803 P.2d 819 (1991); Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Boober, 56 Wash.App. 567, 784 P.2d 186 (1990).

We hold the introduction of Dr. Kerr's medical records did not waive the protection of the deadman statute as to the estate. The deadman statute is inapplicable to the action brought by the Ericksons in their individual capacities. See Maciejczak v. Bartell, 187 Wash. 113, 60 P.2d 31 (1936) (deadman statute only applies to actions brought on behalf of estate).

The next issue is whether the trial court abused its discretion in...