M.B. v. S.P.
Citation | 124 So.3d 358 |
Decision Date | 18 October 2013 |
Docket Number | No. 2D12–3136.,2D12–3136. |
Parties | M.B., Appellant, v. S.P., M.D., and CDMG, P.A., Appellees. |
Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
William H. Rogner of Hurley, Rogner, Miller, Cox, Waranch & Westcott, P.A., Winter Park, for Appellant.
Mark Hicks and Erik P. Bartenhagen of Hicks, Porter, Ebenfeld & Stein, P.A., Miami, for Appellees.
M.B. appeals a final judgment entered in favor of S.P. and CDMG in her medical malpractice action.1 M.B. contends that the trial court erred by failing to allow her to introduce evidence that S.P. had repeatedly failed the board certification exam and by failing to disqualify itself and/or grant a mistrial after M.B. discovered that the trial judge wrote a derogatory note about M.B. We affirm on the issue of S.P.'s board certification failures because such evidence was not relevant. However, we agree that M.B. is entitled to a new trial due to the trial judge's conduct below.
In June 2009, M.B. was referred to S.P. after complaining to her primary care physician of unusual cramping and pain and irregular bleeding. S.P. determined that M.B. needed a hysterectomy and ultimately performed a laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy in July 2009. M.B. returned to the hospital five days after the procedure complaining of acute abdominal pain and discomfort. Tests revealed M.B. had a blocked ureter. Surgery could not be immediately performed due to inflammation. As a result, M.B. had to have a nephrostomy tube inserted, which allowed for urine to drain into an external collection bag, thereby bypassing the damaged ureter. M.B. had to wear the nephrostomy tube for a three-month period, and during that time, she suffered severe diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting.2 Eventually, M.B.'s damaged ureter was successfully repaired. However, M.B. testified at trial that she still suffers from dull pain, has increased frequency of urination, and wets herself every night.
There was no dispute that the injury to M.B.'s ureter was a result of the hysterectomy. The issue of negligence was not premised on the fact that M.B.'s ureter was injured during the surgery. Rather, the issue was based on whether S.P.'s failure to conduct one of several tests postoperatively to check the integrity of M.B.'s ureter, over and above S.P.'s standard visual inspection, constituted negligence. In her complaint, M.B. alleged that she suffered an injury during the hysterectomy as a result of S.P.'s negligence. She further alleged that CDMG, as S.P.'s employer, was vicariously liable for S.P.'s negligent acts.
Prior to trial, S.P. filed a motion in limine seeking to prohibit testimony of his repeated failures to pass the board certification exam. The motion was granted. During the trial, M.B. proffered testimony from S.P. acknowledging that it took him seven years to pass the exam and that he passed the written portion of the exam on the fourth try and the oral portion on the third try. 3 Subsequently, S.P. presented expert testimony from two physicians and elicited from both witnesses that they were board certified by the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology. After each witness, M.B. renewed her motion to admit evidence of S.P.'s board certification exam history. M.B. also proffered testimony from a deposition of one of S.P.'s expert witnesses wherein the physician opined that a repeated failure to pass a board certification exam could be important to him in determining whether the operating physician was competent. However, the trial court denied the motions, and when M.B. attempted to renew the motion to admit the evidence the following day, the trial court refused to consider it, despite M.B.'s assertion that she had case law to support her position.
We review a trial court's decision to exclude evidence for abuse of discretion. Dessaure v. State, 891 So.2d 455, 466 (Fla.2004).
The trial court was within its discretion in granting S.P.'s motion in limine prior to trial. Evidence of S.P.'s repeated failures of the board certification exam was not relevant to the issue of his purported negligence in performing the hysterectomy. See, e.g., Campbell v. Vinjamuri, 19 F.3d 1274, 1276–77 (8th Cir.1994) (); Gipson v. Younes, 724 So.2d 530, 532 (Ala.Civ.App.1998) ( ); Marsingill v. O'Malley, 58 P.3d 495, 501 (Alaska 2002) (); Jackson v. Buchman, 338 Ark. 467, 996 S.W.2d 30, 34 (1999) (); Williams v. Mem'l Med. Ctr., Inc., 218 Ga.App. 107, 460 S.E.2d 558, 560 (1995) (, )abrogated on other grounds recognized by Mullins v. Thompson, 274 Ga. 366, 553 S.E.2d 154 (2001); Dorsey v. Nold, 362 Md. 241, 765 A.2d 79, 84 (2001) ; Beis v. Dias, 859 S.W.2d 835, 839 (Mo.Ct.App.1993) ().
But M.B. argues here that because S.P. testified as an expert, the issue of his repeated failures of the board certification exam was relevant to his credibility as an expert. And if S.P. had, in fact, testified as an expert, case law indicates that such evidence would be relevant and admissible. See, e.g., Marsingill, 58 P.3d at 501 ( ); Jackson, 996 S.W.2d at 35 (); Gipson, 724 So.2d at 532 ( ); Babikian v. Mruz, 353 Ill.Dec. 831, 956 N.E.2d 959, 964 (Ill.App.Ct.2011) ( ); Rockwood v. Singh, 258 Ill.App.3d 555, 196 Ill.Dec. 708, 630 N.E.2d 873, 875 (1993) ( ); McCray v. Shams, 224 Ill.App.3d 999, 167 Ill.Dec. 184, 587 N.E.2d 66, 69 (1992) ( ); Ward v. Epting, 290 S.C. 547, 351 S.E.2d 867, 872–73 (App.1986) ( ); Dorsey, 765 A.2d at 84 ( ).
However, in this case, S.P. could only be said to have provided limited expert testimony, if any. S.P. never directly opined that he met the requisite standard of care nor did he opine within a reasonable degree of medical certainty as to the cause of M.B.'s injuries. Rather, during cross-examination, S.P. was asked whether he agreed his actions were below the standard of care required, and he responded that he disagreed with that assertion. In Campbell, the defendant physician provided an almost identical response, and the Eighth Circuit held that this response did not render evidence of the physician's repeated board certification failures relevant. 19 F.3d at 1277 n. 2. We agree with that reasoning. A physician's general testimony about his education, training, professional experience, and license to practice in the relevant state is very different from evidence about routine operating room procedures and opinions to a reasonable degree of medical certainty. See Rockwood, 196 Ill.Dec. 708, 630 N.E.2d at 875 (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Upky v. Lindsey, CIV 13-0553 JB/GBW
...against a defendant in a medical malpractice case when the defendant testifies as an expert witness. See M.B. v. S.P., 124 So. 3d 358, 361-62 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)(holding that evidence that defendant failed his board certification exam was not relevant, but may have been relevant if t......
- Soffer v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
- Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Hallgren
-
Barnhill v. State
...sentencing. “The very foundation of our system of justice mandates that judges be completely neutral and impartial.” M.B. v. S.P., 124 So.3d 358, 365 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013). Where a trial judge permits his emotions to guide him away from this principle, we must reverse. See Williams, 143 So.2d ......
-
Introduction
...opened the door to the evidence that defendant refused to provide a sample of DNA which could have proven his innocence. M.B. v. S.P. , 124 So. 3d 358, 363 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013). In medical malpractice case, the defendant physician did not open the door to evidence that he repeatedly f......