Waller v. Hayden

Citation885 P.2d 1305,268 Mont. 204
Decision Date13 December 1994
Docket NumberNo. 93-464,93-464
PartiesLinda WALLER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Virgil L. HAYDEN, M.D., Defendant and Respondent.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Montana

Charles L. Neff, Bhella, Neff, Rathert, Wahl & Eiken, Williston, ND, for appellant.

John H. Maynard and Ken C. Crippen, Browning, Kaleczyc, Berry & Hoven, Helena, for respondent.

TRIEWEILER, Justice.

Plaintiff Linda Waller filed a complaint in the District Court for the Seventh Judicial District in Richland County to recover damages from defendant Virgil L. Hayden, M.D., for what she alleged was negligent surgical treatment, battery, and reckless disregard for her well-being. Waller's claims were presented to a jury during an eight-day trial. Afterward, a verdict was returned in favor of Hayden on all claims. Waller appeals from the judgment entered pursuant to that verdict, and the District Court's denial of her motion for a new trial. We affirm the judgment of the District Court.

The only issue on appeal is whether the District Court abused its discretion when it

excluded evidence of Hayden's involvement in disciplinary proceedings which were commenced in another state based on conduct that occurred ten years prior to the conduct which was the subject of Waller's claim.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Since Waller's appeal is limited to the issue set forth above, a complete record of the trial court proceedings has not been provided, and our summary of the facts is necessarily based on the written pleadings and arguments of the parties and the testimony of defendant Virgil L. Hayden, M.D. However, that record is sufficient for purposes of resolving the issue presented.

On November 18, 1991, Waller filed a complaint in Richland County District Court in which she named Hayden as the defendant. She alleged that Hayden was a physician licensed to practice in Montana, and that he specialized in obstetric and gynecological care. She stated that she first saw Hayden on June 20, 1989, for vaginal discomfort and other complaints; that he performed a surgical procedure known as laparoscopy on July 11, 1989; and that as a result of his initial examination and his observation of Waller's ovaries during the laparoscopy, he formed the opinion that Waller was suffering from endometriosis affecting her uterus, ovaries, and fallopian tubes. On that basis, he recommended a complete hysterectomy, or removal of her uterus, and a bilateral salpingo oophorectomy, or removal of her ovaries and fallopian tubes. She accepted his advice and underwent both procedures by intra-abdominal surgery on August 11, 1989.

Endometriosis is defined as the presence of tissue similar to the lining of the uterus at other sites in the pelvis. The tissue undergoes periodic changes similar to those of the endometrium and causes pelvic pain throughout and after menstruation. Bantam Medical Dictionary 143 (Rev. ed. 1990).

Waller alleged in her complaint, and it was confirmed at trial, that pathological studies of her ovaries after they were removed did not disclose the presence of endometriosis in those parts of her body. For that reason, she alleged that Hayden negligently formed his pre-operative diagnosis, and was negligent when he removed her ovaries and fallopian tubes. She also alleged that because of the premature removal of her ovaries and fallopian tubes at the age of 38, she suffered a loss of natural estrogen, which exposes her to numerous increased health risks.

For a second cause of action, Waller alleged that because Hayden knew she did not want to have her ovaries removed unless it was absolutely necessary, and because he knew, or should have known, that it was unnecessary when he removed them, he committed a battery upon her person.

For a third cause of action, Waller alleged, and Hayden subsequently admitted, that during the surgical procedure that he performed on August 11, 1989, he cut, or in some other way tore, a portion of her bowel, and that although it was surgically repaired, she suffered subsequent restriction of the bowel at that location from stenosis which had to be treated surgically at a later date.

For a fourth cause of action, Waller alleged that during his conversations with her following surgery, Hayden misrepresented or concealed the full extent of damage that was caused to her bowel during surgery; that she suffered more severe health consequences as a result of his concealment, and that because of this reckless disregard for her well-being, she was entitled to actual and punitive damages.

Hayden admitted that he was a licensed physician who specialized in obstetric and gynecological care; that he was consulted by Waller for the complaints she described on June 20, 1989; that he performed a laparoscopy on her on July 11, 1989; and that he performed the surgical procedures described previously on August 11, 1989. He also admitted that plaintiff's bowel was damaged and surgically repaired during the August 11 surgery, and that that injury later caused stenosis which had to be surgically treated. However, he otherwise denied her allegations and affirmatively stated that at all times his care for her complied with acceptable standards for members of his profession. He specifically denied that he concealed from her the nature of the injury to her bowel following surgery.

Prior to trial, Waller learned that from 1973 until 1982 Hayden practiced medicine in Pine Bluff, Arkansas, and that while there he was involved in a peer review process which ultimately led to recommendations for supervision of some aspects of his practice and mandatory post-graduate education. She learned that the peer review process in Arkansas began when a fellow physician at the hospital where Hayden worked wrote to the obstetrics-gynecological department and complained that Hayden had performed an unnecessary cesarean section. In response to that complaint, a committee in that department conducted an investigation which ultimately led to its conclusion that Hayden had performed two unnecessary cesarean sections. As a result of the investigation, Hayden was, for a period of time, required to obtain consultation prior to performing any further cesarean sections, and was ordered to obtain additional post-graduate education.

Hayden apparently concluded that he was unable to satisfy the additional education requirement and still maintain his practice. Therefore, he terminated his practice in Arkansas and moved to Sidney, Montana, in 1982.

On November 17, 1982, Hayden filed a complaint in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas in which he named Jefferson Regional Medical Center, its administrator, and eight of the doctors on its medical staff, as defendants. Jefferson Regional Medical Center is the hospital at which Hayden practiced during the disciplinary process previously described. In his complaint, he alleged that the disciplinary action taken against him by the defendants (1) denied him equal protection and due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (2) conspired to form a group boycott against him and combine to a certain monopoly power in violation of §§ 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act; (3) made defamatory statements about him; and (4) interfered with and conspired to interfere with his business relationship. See Hayden v. Bracy (8th Cir.1984), 744 F.2d 1338.

The district court dismissed Hayden's claims based on 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Sherman Antitrust Act by summary judgment, and after a nonjury trial, entered judgment for the defendants on the other claims.

Prior to the trial in this case, Hayden moved in limine for an order precluding Waller from referring to the disciplinary proceedings that occurred in Arkansas, or the litigation commenced by Hayden in the Federal District Court in Arkansas. On April 2, 1993, the District Court granted that motion, except to the extent that Hayden "opened the door" to admission of the Arkansas evidence, or to the extent that it was necessary for impeachment purposes. During the pretrial conference, after Waller requested that the District Court reconsider its order, the District Court clarified that unless the defendant testified and tried to embellish on his qualifications, the Arkansas information was irrelevant to the issues in this case. The District Court reasoned that Hayden's qualifications for diagnosis of endometriosis had nothing to do with his judgment related to cesarean section procedures performed ten years earlier.

This case proceeded to trial and Hayden was called by Waller as an adverse witness during the presentation of her case. He was examined at length by her attorney. Near the conclusion of that examination, Waller renewed her request that the court reconsider its order in limine, and if allowed, offered to present the following evidence:

1. Testimony from Hayden in the Arkansas trial that he moved from Arkansas to Montana because of fear that his privileges to practice at the Arkansas hospital were in jeopardy.

2. A certified copy of the complaint filed by Hayden in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas in which the Jefferson Regional Medical Center and its staff members were named as defendants.

3. A certified copy of the findings of fact and conclusions of law from the Federal District Court in Arkansas which resolved Hayden's complaint.

4. A certified copy of the published opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit which affirmed the Federal District Court's disposition of Hayden's claim against the Jefferson Regional Medical Center and its staff members.

The District Court rejected Waller's offer of proof for the following reasons:

1. That since the federal litigation related to issues of defamation and wrongful interference with Hayden's ability to work, it was not directly related to his professional qualifications;

2....

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • State v. Strizich
    • United States
    • Montana Supreme Court
    • November 30, 2021
    ... ... Couture , 1998 MT 137, ¶ 18, 289 Mont ... 215, 959 P.2d 948; State v. Ford , 278 Mont. 353, ... 361, 926 P.2d 245, 249-50 (1996); Waller v. Hayden , ... 268 Mont. 204, 210, 885 P.2d 1305, 1308 (1994). This Court ... does not weigh the facts in isolation of district court ... ...
  • Baragano v. Vaynshelbaum
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • July 27, 2011
    ...or result in a distracting series of mini-trials. Case law supports admission of the administrative findings and orders. Waller v. Hayden, 885 P.2d 1305 (Mont. 1994), a Montana medical malpractice case, illustrates the trial court's broad discretion to admit evidence of administrative findi......
  • Bueling v. Swift
    • United States
    • Montana Supreme Court
    • May 5, 1998
    ...is admissible; thus, we will not overturn a district court's evidentiary ruling absent an abuse of discretion. Waller v. Hayden (1994), 268 Mont. 204, 885 P.2d 1305. In this case, the District Court found that the jury would likely confuse Dr. Schaffer's testimony with that of a medical exp......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT