Soares v. Vestal, 92-649-A
| Decision Date | 03 November 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-649-A,92-649-A |
| Citation | 632 A.2d 647 |
| Parties | Joseph SOARES v. Janie VESTAL, M.D. ppeal. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
This case came before a hearing panel of this court pursuant to an order directing Joseph Soares (plaintiff) to show cause why his appeal from a Superior Court judgment granting a directed verdict for Dr. Janie Vestal (defendant), should not be summarily decided.
The plaintiff brought suit alleging inter alia that defendant's failure to x-ray his wrist and hand following his motorcycle accident constituted medical malpractice and proximately caused a nonunion of certain wrist bones. At trial, the deposition of plaintiff's witness, Dr. Michael Ronthal, acting chief of neurology at Beth Israel Hospital in Boston, was not admitted. The plaintiff challenges the trial justice's exclusion of Dr. Ronthal's expert testimony.
The trial justice reasoned that because the witness, who was trained in South Africa, was not certified in either emergency medicine or family practice, his board certifications in neurology and internal medicine did not qualify him under G.L.1956 (1985 Reenactment) § 9-19-41, as enacted by P.L.1986, ch. 350, § 5. The plaintiff argues that § 9-19-41 has been superseded by Rule 702 of the Rhode Island Rules of Evidence.
We are of the opinion that the decision on the admissibility of evidence is well within the discretion of the trial justice. We read, at this juncture, § 9-19-41 and Rule 702 as complementary rather than contradictory to each other. In this matter we...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sheeley v. Memorial Hosp.
...conferences, active obstetric work, professorial responsibilities, and continuing education. Nevertheless, relying on Soares v. Vestal, 632 A.2d 647 (R.I.1993), defendants maintained that § 9-19-41 requires a testifying expert to be in the same medical field as the defendant physician. In S......
-
Flanagan v. Wesselhoeft
...9-19-32 and Rule 50 do not conflict but rather are complementary and must be read in conjunction with each other. Soares v. Vestal, 632 A.2d 647, 648 (R.I.1993) (per curiam).3 In Marchetti v. Parsons, 638 A.2d 1047, 1052 (1994), this court held that"in order to recover for negligent inflict......
-
Owens v. Payless Cashways, Inc.
...In the absence of clear legislative intent to the contrary, we shall not remove that discretion. We recently held in Soares v. Vestal, 632 A.2d 647 (R.I.1993) (per curiam), that Rule 702 and § 9-19-41, as amended by P.L.1986, ch. 350, § 5, were complementary, rather than contradictory, and ......
-
Sweredoski v. Alfa Laval, Inc.
...the asbestos context should be confined to the expert's field of expertise, as required in the medical malpractice context. See 632 A.2d 647, 647-48 (R.I. 1993). However, the Supreme Court in Soares did not hold, broadly, that experts are required to be certified in a specific field in orde......