Smith v. Polsky
Citation | 796 S.E.2d 354,251 N.C.App. 589 |
Decision Date | 17 January 2017 |
Docket Number | No. COA16-605,COA16-605 |
Court | Court of Appeal of North Carolina (US) |
Parties | Walter Calvert SMITH, Plaintiff, v. Stewart POLSKY, M.D., Carolina Urology Partners, PLLC, and Lake Norman Urology, PLLC, Defendants. |
Homesley, Gaines, Dudley & Clodfelter, LLP, Statesville, by Edmund L. Gaines and Christina Clodfelter, for plaintiff-appellee.
Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP, Charlotte, by Chip Holmes and Bradley K. Overcash, for defendants-appellants.
Stewart Polsky, M.D., Carolina Urology Partners, PLLC, and Lake Norman Urology, PLLC (defendants) appeal an order denying certain portions of their pretrial motion in limine . For the reasons that follow, we dismiss defendants’ appeal as interlocutory.
Plaintiff Walter Smith (Smith) became a paraplegic in 1975 when he suffered a spinal cord injury in a motor vehicle accident. In 1995, Smith underwent the implantation of an inflatable penile prosthesis, which malfunctioned and ceased operating in 2008. Dr. Polsky became Smith's urologist in 2005. On 25 August 2009, Dr. Polsky performed penile prosthesis revision surgery on Smith, a procedure that involved removing the original inflatable penile prosthetic device and replacing it with a new one.
Following the procedure, Smith experienced pain and swelling at the surgical site, and he was eventually hospitalized on 19 September 2009. Dr. Polsky examined Smith at the hospital, diagnosed him with a "possible scrotal infection," and prescribed three antibiotics. The antibiotics Gentamicin, Vancomycin, and Ceftriaxone were administered intravenously. After being discharged from the hospital on 23 September 2009, Smith was instructed to continue taking the three antibiotics intravenously, and Advanced Home Care, Inc. (Advanced Home Care) provided and administered the medications. Smith received his last dose of Gentamicin—which is known to cause bilateral vestibulopathy, a condition caused by damage to one's inner ears that results in imbalance and impaired vision—on 9 October 2009. Shortly thereafter, Smith was diagnosed with bilateral vestibulopathy. Smith had the infected, replacement penile prosthesis surgically removed approximately three years later.
In February 2011, Smith filed for Chapter 7 Bankruptcy. On 21 August 2012, the trustee of Smith's bankruptcy estate filed a complaint in Iredell County Superior Court against Dr. Polsky, his medical practice, and Advanced Home Care. The complaint alleged numerous theories of medical negligence arising out of the surgical care as well as the prescription and monitoring of the post-surgery antibiotic therapy that Smith received from August through October of 2009. Pertinent to this appeal, the complaint alleged that once Smith was diagnosed with a scrotal (or superficial wound ) infection on 19 September 2009, Dr. Polsky was negligent in choosing to prescribe antibiotic therapy instead of surgically removing the infected penile prosthesis. All claims against Advanced Home Care were eventually settled and dismissed, and a portion of the settlement proceeds were used to satisfy the claims of Smith's bankruptcy estate. As a result, Smith was substituted as plaintiff against Dr. Polsky and his practice, the remaining defendants in the medical negligence action.
In May 2014, defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. However, before the trial court ruled on defendants’ motion, the parties entered into a Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice and Stipulation (the Dismissal). Pursuant to the Dismissal, Smith dismissed with prejudice the claims contained in Paragraph 41, subparagraphs (d) through (k) of his complaint, which alleged the following theories of negligence:
The Dismissal also required Smith to file an amended complaint, and he did so on 3 September 2014. Smith further stipulated that the "only remaining theories of negligence alleged against [d]efendants ... [were] enumerated in Paragraph 32, subparagraphs (a) through (c)" of his amended complaint, which read:
In exchange for Smith's promises to dismiss the above-mentioned theories of negligence and file an amended complaint, defendants agreed and stipulated that material issues of fact remained concerning Smith's surviving negligence claims.
The trial court held a hearing on the parties’ pretrial motions on 21 December 2015. At the hearing, defendants argued that while Smith could present evidence that "any antibiotic treatment would not have helped [him] because the only [prudent] decision [was] the surgical removal," he could not contend that Dr. Polsky was negligent in choosing, administering, dosing, or monitoring the antibiotic Gentamicin.
In contrast, Smith argued that not allowing him to explain the risks of the Gentamicin treatment "would be to hamstring ..., prevent us from being able to give the jury the rest of the story." Smith's position was that the term "initiating antibiotic therapy" in Paragraph 32, subparagraph (c) of his amended complaint included and preserved claims that Dr. Polsky was negligent in prescribing the long-term use of Gentamicin.
Defendants responded by asserting that all negligence claims concerning the specific, prolonged use of Gentamicin to treat Smith's infection had been dismissed with prejudice. According to defendants, the Dismissal acted as a prior adjudication on the merits as to those claims, and all subparts of defendants’ motion in limine should have been granted pursuant to the doctrine of res judicata.
In an order entered 8 March 2016, the trial court denied defendant's motion in limine No. 1, subparts (1) through (3), and granted defendants’ motion as to subpart (4). Defendants appeal.
Heatherly v. Indus. Health Council , 130 N.C.App. 616, 619, 504 S.E.2d 102, 105 (1998) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). When this Court reviews a decision to grant or deny a motion in limine , the determination will not be reversed absent a showing that the trial court abused its...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Maldjian v. Bloomquist
...limine , the determination will not be reversed absent a showing that the trial court abused its discretion." Smith v. Polsky , 251 N.C. App. 589, 594, 796 S.E.2d 354, 358 (2017). "Abuse of discretion results where the court's ruling is manifestly unsupported by reason or is so arbitrary th......
-
State v. Sanford
...appropriate standard of review of a decision to grant or deny a motion in limine is an abuse of discretion. Smith v. Polsky , 251 N.C. App. 589, 594, 796 S.E.2d 354, 358 (2017) ; State v. Wilkerson , 223 N.C. App. 195, 198, 733 S.E.2d 181, 183 (2012). "Abuse of discretion results where the ......
- Hooker v. The Citadel Salisbury LLC
- Hooker v. The Citadel Salisbury LLC