Secol v. Fall River Med., P. L. L.C.
| Decision Date | 22 March 2021 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 47149 |
| Citation | 168 Idaho 339,483 P.3d 396 |
| Parties | Cassie Alberta SECOL, an individual; Cassie Alberta Secol as the legal guardian and parent for and on behalf of A.S., a minor child; L.S., a minor child; C.S., a minor child; and E.S., a minor child, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. FALL RIVER MEDICAL, P.L.L.C., dba Fall River Family Medicine & Urgent Care, a professional limited liability company; Kelly L. Dustin, D.O., in his individual and official capacity; and Austin C. Gillette, M.D., in his individual and official capacity, Defendants-Respondents. |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
Hall Angell & Associates, LLP, Idaho Falls, for Appellants. Sam L. Angell argued.
Thomsen Holman Wheiler, PLLC, Idaho Falls, for Respondents. Richard R. Friess argued.
In an appeal from the Madison County district court, Cassie Secol and her four minor children (collectively "the Secols") challenge several evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, and the denial of their motion for a new trial. This case concerns, among other things, whether a district court prevented a fair trial when it questioned an expert witness in front of the jury concerning critical liability issues in the case.
In late 2016, Damian Secol passed away from a rare form of cancer, T-cell lymphoblastic lymphoma ("T-LBL"). Following his death, the Secols brought this medical malpractice action against Damian's primary care providers—Kelly L. Dustin, D.O., Austin C. Gillette, M.D., and Fall River Medical, PLLC (collectively "Fall River"). At trial, the district court questioned Dr. Jeffery D. Hancock, Damian's treating oncologist, in front of the jury concerning the treatment and diagnosis of T-LBL. The Secols moved the district court for a mistrial, arguing the questioning prevented a fair trial. The district court denied the motion. After the jury returned a verdict in Fall River's favor, the Secols moved the district court for a new trial, which was also denied. The Secols appealed, challenging the district court's evidentiary rulings, delivery of jury instructions, and the denial of their motion for a new trial.
We reverse the district court, vacate the judgment following the jury verdict, and remand for a new trial to be conducted by a new district judge.
In the spring of 2016, Damian Secol scheduled an appointment at his primary care provider, Fall River Family Medicine, due to persistent coughing and a feeling that his throat was closing off when he lay down. During this first visit, on June 6, 2016, Damian1 was seen by Austin C. Gillette, M.D. Dr. Gillette noted that Damian "feels like his throat is closing off some, [has] some coughing fits, irritation in the throat but not a lot of sore throat, [and] feels ... sometimes worse when sleeping[,] especially if on the back." In total, Damian visited Fall River at least six times between June 6, 2016, and July 15, 2016, complaining of respiratory problems such as "shortness of breath," "difficulty breathing," and feeling like his "throat [was] tightening up." At each visit, Damian saw either Dr. Gillette or Kelly L. Dustin, D.O. At no point in time did either doctor conduct an x-ray of Damian's chest.
On June 21, 2016, Cassie attended Damian's third visit to Fall River and recalled asking Dr. Dustin to perform a chest x-ray, which Dr. Dustin declined to do because he believed Damian's symptoms were due to allergies or asthma. Dr. Dustin did not recall being asked to perform an x-ray but confirmed that he did not perform an x-ray at that visit.
Without a diagnosis and with worsening symptoms, Cassie and Damian's frustrations with the care at Fall River came to a head following Damian's last appointment there on Friday, July 15. That weekend, on Sunday, swelling in Damian's chest and neck prevented him from buttoning the top two buttons on his dress shirt before church. The couple resolved to drive to Eastern Idaho Regional Medical Center ("EIRMC") the next day for different care.
At EIRMC, doctors performed chest x-rays and a CT scan, discovering a mass in Damian's chest measuring 17 cm by 12 cm by 12 cm, roughly the size of a large cantaloupe. A biopsy of the mass revealed a rare and fast-growing form of cancer, T-LBL. Doctors at EIRMC immediately arranged to have Damian transferred to LDS Hospital/Intermountain Healthcare ("LDSH") in Salt Lake City to receive treatment. Damian began treatment at LDSH and was eventually referred to Jeffrey D. Hancock, M.D., a pediatric oncologist practicing in the Rexburg area, to continue his treatment.
Dr. Hancock began treating Damian in early August 2016 and Damian successfully completed the first stage of an aggressive chemotherapy protocol. However, during the second stage of his treatment, Damian's condition deteriorated and he was transferred back to LDSH in mid-November. Damian was discharged from LDSH on December 1, 2016, and died at home the following day.
After Damian's death, the Secols filed suit against Fall River, claiming medical malpractice, respondeat superior liability, negligent failure to train, and willful or reckless conduct. The core of the Secols’ complaint is that Dr. Austin and Dr. Gillette breached the standard of care by not ordering a chest x-ray for Damian, which led to a delay in the diagnosis and treatment of his T-LBL. After filing their complaint, the Secols moved the district court to allow them to amend their complaint to include a claim of punitive damages under Idaho Code section 6-1604. The district court granted this motion and the Secols filed their amended complaint in December 2018.
During discovery, Fall River disclosed two retained expert witnesses to testify on the standard of care: Johnathan Cree, M.D., and Eric Pertulla, M.D. In addition to Dr. Cree and Dr. Pertulla, Fall River also disclosed Dr. Hancock, Damian's treating oncologist, as a non-retained expert witness. The Secols then filed a motion in limine to limit Fall River to one expert witness on the standard of care. The district court granted the motion2 but the district judge presiding over the case was subsequently appointed to this Court and a new district judge was assigned to the case. Following the assignment of a new district judge, Fall River moved the district court to reconsider its previous order limiting Fall River to one expert on the standard of care. The district court granted the motion to reconsider and allowed Fall River to call both Dr. Cree and Dr. Pertulla to testify as to the standard of care.
The jury trial began March 19, 2019. After the Secols rested their case, Fall River moved for a directed verdict on all the Secols’ claims. The district court granted Fall River's motion with respect to the respondeat superior, negligent failure to train, and punitive damages claims. However, the district court did not grant Fall River's motion for a directed verdict on the medical malpractice claim, choosing instead to briefly reopen the Secols’ case to allow them to cure a technical error in their expert testimony that would otherwise have been fatal to the claim.
Subsequently, as part of their case in chief, Fall River called Dr. Hancock to testify concerning Damian's treatment and whether his prognosis would have been different had he been diagnosed six weeks earlier. Prior to trial, the Secols had filed a motion in limine to limit Dr. Hancock's testimony to his observations and treatment of Damian, but the district court denied this motion. The Secols also objected multiple times to testimony from Dr. Hancock concerning the effect a six-week delay in diagnosis had on Damian's prognosis. The district court overruled these objections. Following the Secols’ cross-examination of Dr. Hancock, and redirect examination by Fall River, the district court directly questioned Dr. Hancock in front of the jury. The Secols conducted further cross-examination and moved to strike Dr. Hancock's testimony as outside the scope of Damian's treatment, which the district court again overruled.
The following day, outside the presence of the jury, the Secols moved for a mistrial, arguing that the district court's questioning of Dr. Hancock had prevented a fair trial. The district court denied the motion, reasoning that its questioning clarified the evidence presented and did not express any prejudice towards or endorsement of a party.
With respect to jury instructions, the Secols objected to a proposed instruction that deviated from the standard jury instruction for medical negligence by requiring both breach and causation be proved by "direct expert testimony." The Secols also objected to the district court's refusal to give their proposed instruction on punitive damages following the district court's grant of a directed verdict on that claim. Eventually, the district court modified the proposed instruction on medical malpractice and instructed the jury that the Secols had the burden to prove "[b]y direct expert testimony that [Fall River] failed to meet the applicable standard of care" and that causation must be proved by "expert testimony."
The jury returned a verdict in favor of Fall River on March 28, 2019. Following the verdict, the Secols moved the court for a directed verdict or, in the alternative, a new trial. The Secols argued that the district court's questioning of Dr. Hancock prevented a fair trial and that the district court's reconsideration of its motion in limine prejudiced them. The district court denied the motion, ruling that sufficient evidence supported the jury's verdict, that the district court's questioning of Dr. Hancock did not deprive the Secols of a fair trial, and that the district court's reconsideration of its prior order did not prejudice the Secols.
The Secols timely appealed.
To continue reading
Request your trial