Narrative Opinion Summary
This case involves an appeal by Janet L. Lowder, acting as guardian for Kristia Mayers, following a jury verdict in favor of Dr. Albert T. Domingo, M.D., in a medical malpractice claim. The appellant alleged that Dr. Domingo's management of shoulder dystocia during Kristia's delivery resulted in a permanent brachial plexus injury, asserting excessive force was used, and that a cesarean section was not offered despite maternal diabetes risks. At trial, expert testimony varied, with the appellant's expert asserting the injury was due to excessive lateral traction, while the defense experts supported the standard of care in Dr. Domingo's actions. The appeal raised issues of improper impeachment of the appellant's expert witness using prior lawsuits and incorrect jury instructions. The appellate court held that the trial court did not err in allowing cross-examination regarding previous allegations against the expert, as the appellant failed to timely object, and no plain error was found. Additionally, the court affirmed the jury instructions, ruling that the 'different methods' charge was appropriate, as evidence showed multiple accepted obstetrical maneuvers within the standard of care. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the judgment in favor of Dr. Domingo.
Legal Issues Addressed
Admissibility of Extrinsic Evidence for Impeachmentsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court addressed whether extrinsic evidence related to a prior lawsuit against Dr. Bottiglieri for similar allegations could be used for impeachment purposes.
Reasoning: Assuming the alleged error was not waived, the court maintained that the trial court acted correctly in permitting the testimony.
Jury Instructions in Medical Malpractice Casessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court evaluated the propriety of the 'different methods' jury instruction, considering whether it accurately reflected the law and evidence presented at trial.
Reasoning: The trial court's instruction clarified that while alternative treatment methods exist, the mere difference does not equate to negligence.
Medical Malpractice and Standard of Caresubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court examined whether Dr. Domingo's actions during the delivery of Kristia Mayers adhered to the standard of care, focusing on the management of shoulder dystocia and the decision not to offer a cesarean section.
Reasoning: The appellant claimed excessive force was used during delivery and that Dr. Domingo failed to offer a cesarean section, despite the mother’s diabetes posing risks.
Waiver of Trial Errorssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found that the appellant waived any alleged trial errors not timely objected to, specifically concerning the inquiry into past lawsuits during the cross-examination of Dr. Bottiglieri.
Reasoning: It is established that a party waives any trial errors not timely objected to, as outlined in Goldfuss v. Davidson, which restricts appeals to plain error affecting judicial fairness.