Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, the plaintiff sued a physician for alleged negligence during a sphincterotomy procedure that she claimed resulted in incontinence. The jury ruled in favor of the physician, prompting the plaintiff to seek a new trial on grounds of improper evidence admission and jury instruction. Specifically, the plaintiff challenged the admission of an excerpt from a medical text and a jury instruction regarding alternative treatment methods. The trial court denied the motion for a new trial, and the plaintiff appealed. The appellate court examined whether the admission of the medical text violated Utah Rule of Evidence 803(18), which restricts the admission of learned treatises as exhibits. Although the court identified an error in admitting the text, it deemed it harmless due to the overwhelming evidence supporting the physician's standard of care. Additionally, the court found the jury instruction regarding alternative treatment methods appropriate, as there was sufficient evidence of the procedure's acceptance in the medical community. Ultimately, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the identified errors did not significantly impact the trial's outcome.
Legal Issues Addressed
Admissibility of Learned Treatises under Utah Rule of Evidence 803(18)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The trial court admitted an excerpt from the Zollinger medical text as evidence, which was contested under Rule 803(18) as it allows learned treatises for illustration only, not as exhibits.
Reasoning: Utah Rule of Evidence 803(18) allows for the admission of statements from learned treatises as evidence, provided they are referenced by an expert witness during cross-examination or relied upon in direct examination. However, these treatises cannot be admitted as exhibits.
Jury Instructions on Alternative Treatment Methodssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court provided an instruction that a physician is not negligent for selecting one of several accepted treatment methods, which was contested by Butler but found to be harmless error.
Reasoning: This instruction indicated that a physician is not negligent if they choose one of several accepted methods of diagnosis or treatment, even if that choice is later deemed incorrect or less favored.
Standard of Review for Harmful Errorsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court applied the standard that an error must significantly affect the outcome of the trial to warrant a new trial, which was not met in this case.
Reasoning: Harmful error is defined as one that could significantly alter the trial's outcome, undermining confidence in the verdict.