Hudson v. Napolitano
| Decision Date | 21 June 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 88-537-A,88-537-A |
| Citation | 575 A.2d 187 |
| Parties | Nancy E. HUDSON v. Stephen NAPOLITANO et al. ppeal. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
This case comes before us on appeal by the plaintiff, Nancy E. Hudson, from a judgment entered in the Superior Court in her favor for the amount of $15,000 together with interest and costs. Her appeal is based solely upon the exclusion by the trial justice of an affidavit submitted by a chiropractic physician. We affirm the judgment as rendered. The facts of the case insofar as pertinent to this appeal are as follows.
The plaintiff on July 22, 1980, was involved in an automobile accident with an unmarked motor vehicle operated by a Providence police officer Alfred Tudino. The plaintiff filed a complaint against Tudino and the city of Providence through its Treasurer, Stephen Napolitano. As a result of this accident, plaintiff was treated by various physicians and finally discharged by Dr. William Sammartino, a neurosurgeon, in September 1981. In early 1982 plaintiff consulted a chiropractic physician Dr. David Cichy. She continued to consult with Dr. Cichy intermittently until the time of trial, which began on June 1, 1988.
At the close of the evidence plaintiff's counsel offered to introduce a number of affidavits relating to medical and hospital services rendered to her. The portion relating to the affidavit of Dr. Cichy is as follows:
"The Court: The objection is sustained, 42 for identification only."
After this brief and cryptic exchange, counsel for plaintiff went on to introduce other affidavits that were received without objection. At the conclusion of this process counsel for plaintiff and the court had the following exchange:
"Mr. Linder: Your Honor, plaintiffs have nothing further."
Relying upon this colloquy, plaintiff asks this court to vacate the judgment entered and to remand the case for trial on the issue of damages only. We are at a great disadvantage in attempting to review this ruling because we can only speculate concerning the basis for the ruling. An additional fact needs to be mentioned, although it tends less to clarify than to complicate the review further. It is undisputed that at the time the affidavit was offered into evidence, no proof of notice to opposing counsel of the contents of Dr. Cichy's affidavit was contained in the court file or proffered to the trial justice. The importance of notice may be readily ascertained from the provision of G.L.1956 (1985 Reenactment) § 9-19-27, which authorizes the introduction of hospital and medical records by way of affidavit with the following proviso:
"provided, further, that written notice of the intention to offer such bill or report as such evidence, together with a copy thereof, has been given to the opposing party or parties, or to his or her or their attorneys, by mailing the same by certified mail, return receipt requested, not less than ten (10) days before the introduction of same into evidence, and that an affidavit of such notice and the return receipt is filed with the clerk of the court forthwith after said receipt has been returned."
In fact no proof of notice of Dr. Cichy's affidavit was provided to any court until counsel for plaintiff filed a second affidavit concerning the mailing of such notice. This second affidavit, dated April 7, 1989, was filed May 30, 1989, after the appeal had been docketed in this court. We are unaware whether the trial justice excluded the affidavit of Dr. Cichy because of the absence of proof of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sheeley v. Memorial Hosp.
...clearly describes the relevance and competence of the offered evidence, no such offer of proof is necessary. See Hudson v. Napolitano, 575 A.2d 187, 188-89 (R.I.1990). In a medical malpractice case expert testimony is an essential requirement in proving the standard of care applicable to th......
-
State v. Brouillard, 96-344-C.A.
...(holding that even when appellate review is de novo, it is limited to the record as developed below). See also Hudson v. Napolitano, 575 A.2d 187, 189 (R.I.1990) (holding that "[a]ttempting to cure a defect for the first time in a proffer of evidence before the appellate court is unavailing......
-
Jameson v. Hawthorne
...the admissibility of itemized bills and hospital and medical records by way of affidavit. Section 9-19-27(a); see also Hudson v. Napolitano, 575 A.2d 187, 188 (R.I.1990). The statute contains a proviso that a written notice of the intention to offer such bill or report along with a copy of ......
-
Martinez v. Kurdziel
...common-law right of cross-examination. This court has utilized § 9-19-27 as an evidentiary tool in numerous cases. See Hudson v. Napolitano, 575 A.2d 187, 188 (R.I.1990); Cuddy v. Schiavonne, 568 A.2d 1387, 1390 (R.I.1990); Parrillo v. F.W. Woolworth Co., 518 A.2d 354, 355 Due process of la......