Estate v. Mastroianni
Decision Date | 05 May 2020 |
Docket Number | SCWC-14-0001030 |
Citation | 463 P.3d 1197 |
Parties | ESTATE OF Robert FREY, Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert P. MASTROIANNI, M.D., Respondent/Defendant-Appellee. |
Court | Hawaii Supreme Court |
Anthony L. Ranken, Samuel P. Shnider, Wailuku, for Petitioner
Thomas E. Cook, Honolulu, Brandford F.K. Bliss, for Respondent
Following the death of Robert Frey ("Frey") in 2004, his estate and several family members initiated proceedings against Dr. Robert Mastroianni ("Dr. Mastroianni") before a medical claim conciliation panel ("MCCP"), claiming that Dr. Mastroianni's negligence was the cause of Frey's death. The case eventually led to a 2014 trial in the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit ("circuit court"). After the sole remaining plaintiff, the Estate of Robert Frey ("the Estate"), rested its case, the circuit court granted judgment as a matter of law to Dr. Mastroianni.
The circuit court held that it had no jurisdiction over the Estate's "loss of chance" claim—that is, its claim that Dr. Mastroianni's negligence caused Frey to lose a chance of recovery or survival—because such a claim was not raised before the MCCP. And it held that the Estate had failed, as a matter of law, to present sufficient evidence of causation to make out a claim. The Intermediate Court of Appeals ("ICA") affirmed. Estate of Frey v. Mastroianni, No. CAAP-14-0001030, 2018 WL 3199216, at *12 (App. June 29, 2018) (mem.). The ICA concluded that "loss of chance" claims seek recovery for a "separate compensable injury[,]" and that the Estate's failure to raise loss of chance before the MCCP deprived the circuit court of jurisdiction. Id. at *7. It also concluded that, during trial, the Estate had "failed to provide any expert medical testimony establishing that Dr. Mastroianni caused Frey's death ‘to a reasonable degree of medical probability.’ " Id. at *11.
We accepted certiorari to resolve the question of whether the "loss of chance" doctrine is consistent with Hawai‘i law and to provide additional guidance regarding the MCCP pleading process. In brief, we hold that while a "loss of chance" is not a separate compensable injury under Hawai‘i law, a factfinder in a medical malpractice case involving the death of a patient may consider a loss of chance theory in determining legal causation under our traditional framework for negligence, which considers whether an actor's conduct was a substantial factor in bringing about the harm. See Mitchell v. Branch, 45 Haw. 128, 132, 363 P.2d 969, 973 (1961). We also clarify that the pleading requirements before MCCPs, now renamed MICPs, are intended to be relatively simple, requiring only a brief description of the facts underlying the claim, not a detailed legal theory of the case. Thus, we hold that the circuit court had jurisdiction over the Estate's negligence claim, including its loss of chance arguments, in the present case. We hold further that the circuit court erred in holding that the Estate failed as a matter of law to present sufficient evidence of causation to make out a claim. We remand the case for a new trial in light of this opinion.
On June 13, 2006, the Estate and several of Robert Frey's family members (collectively, "the Claimants") submitted a letter ("the Claim Letter") to a medical claim conciliation panel.1 In the Claim Letter, the Claimants alleged that Frey died as a result of the negligence of his treating physician, Dr. Mastroianni. The Claim Letter made the following factual and legal allegations and demand:
On February 28, 2007, the Claimants submitted a pre-hearing statement to the MCCP which repeated these allegations.
In April 2007, the MCCP decided in favor of the Claimants. After the MCCP's decision, Dr. Mastroianni took the position that he would not pay the award.2
On June 12, 2007, the Claimants filed a complaint in the circuit court against Dr. Mastroianni. The complaint alleged one count of "Negligen[c]e (Medical Malpractice)" and one count of "Wrongful Death[.]" As to the negligence count, the complaint alleged facts mirroring those in the Claim Letter and claimed that "[t]he medical care rendered by [Dr. Mastroianni] to Robert Frey fell below the applicable standard of care, and constituted a lack of due care and a negligent act on the part of [Dr. Mastroianni.]" The complaint alleged that, "[h]ad [Dr. Mastroianni] not violated the applicable standard of medical care ..., Mr. Frey's life could have been saved[,]" and that, "[a]s a direct result of [Dr. Mastroianni's] negligence, Robert Frey experienced severe pain and suffering and then died." As to the wrongful death count, the complaint claimed that Dr. Mastroianni's "negligent actions were a substantial factor in causing Robert Frey's death[,]" or, in the alternative, that "[Dr. Mastroianni's] negligent treatment deprived Robert Frey of a significant improvement in his chances for recovery, and/or resulted in a loss of an increased chance of recovery, which loss of chance is compensable in and of itself." The complaint alleged that Dr. Mastroianni was liable to the Estate for Frey's "pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, economic loss, and other damages" and to the other Claimants for "their loss of consortium, emotional distress, economic loss, and other damages."
Dr. Mastroianni filed an answer on July 27, 2007 in which he denied all allegations of negligence. The trial date was continued multiple times over the following years, during which time all of Frey's family members’ claims against Dr. Mastroianni were dismissed with prejudice, leaving the Estate as the sole plaintiff.
Jury trial commenced on July 7, 2014.3 Along with two lay witnesses, the Estate called three expert witnesses: Dr. Peter Schultz, Dr. Bradley Jacobs, and Dr. Darvin Scott Smith.4
The Estate's first expert witness was Dr. Peter Schultz, an internal medicine doctor from California....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Warren v. United States
... ... of medical probability. See, e.g. , Est. of Frey ... v. Mastroianni , 146 Haw. 540, 557, 463 P.3d 1197, 1214 ... (2020) (reiterating that in a medical negligence claim, the ... plaintiff has the burden to ... ...
-
Wadsworth v. Sharma
... ... filed malpractice claims in connection with their son's death including a claim by Jody Hetrick acting as personal representative of her son's estate and a wrongful death action by the mother and father. See id. at 541, 525 A.2d at 645-46. An expert witness, Dr. Kenneth L. Harkavy, testified on ... of Frey v. Mastroianni , 146 Hawai'i 540, 463 P.3d 1197, 1200 (2020), and North Carolina, also a state which had not previously addressed this issue, rejected it, see ... ...
-
Wadsworth v. Sharma
... ... with their son's death including a claim by Jody Hetrick ... acting as personal representative of her son's estate and ... a wrongful death action by the mother and father. See ... id. at 541, 525 A.2d at 645-46. An expert witness, Dr ... which had not yet considered it, endorsed the doctrine, ... see Est. of Frey v. Mastroianni ... ...
-
Krizek v. Queens Med. Ctr.
... ... of Frey v ... Mastroianni , 146 Haw. 540, 557, 463 P.3d 1197, 1214 (2020) (internal quotation and citation omitted); Kaho'ohanohano v ... Dep't of Hum ... Servs ., 117 Haw ... expenses for Bianca's last illness and burial costs pursuant to HRS 663-3(a) because the statute awards such expenses to the decedent's estate. But Plaintiff did not seek such relief pursuant to 663-3(a) in her Complaint, see SAC, ECF No. 190 at PageID # 1565-66, and she concedes that she ... ...