Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Strawderman v. Gencarelli
Citations: 744 A.2d 403; 1999 R.I. LEXIS 235; 1999 WL 1324176Docket: No. 98-296-Appeal
Court: Supreme Court of Rhode Island; December 16, 1999; Rhode Island; State Supreme Court
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on December 7, 1999, regarding an appeal by Joseph and Giorgio Gencarelli (collectively, the Gencarellis) against a Superior Court judgment favoring Debbie Strawderman. The jury awarded Strawderman $70,350 for injuries sustained from a car accident involving Joseph. The Gencarellis appealed the denial of their motion for a new trial, citing four prejudicial evidentiary errors. 1. They argued that the trial court improperly admitted evidence of Strawderman's increased pain post-accident due to the absence of her chiropractor's SOAP notes from prior visits, claiming this lack of foundation undermined her medical claim. However, the court found sufficient evidence of heightened pain from Strawderman's testimony and her chiropractor's professional opinion, rendering the admission of this evidence non-prejudicial. 2. The Gencarellis contested that the trial judge failed to address a discrepancy in the chiropractor's assessment of Strawderman's permanent impairment, which changed from fifteen percent to ten percent. They argued the latter lacked a solid medical foundation since the initial assessment was termed a 'guess.' The court noted that McClure adequately explained the change during his testimony, and since this issue was not raised at trial, it was not considered on appeal. 3. They criticized the trial justice for allowing McClure to clarify why he did not have SOAP notes for Strawderman, citing a conversation with his secretary about opting for a maintenance plan instead. The court determined this testimony was not hearsay as it was offered to explain McClure's inconsistent statements rather than to establish the truth of the matter asserted. The Supreme Court concluded that the Gencarellis failed to demonstrate cause for a new trial, and therefore decided to resolve the case without further proceedings. The Gencarellis contested the trial justice's decision to admit a hypothetical question posed to Strawderman regarding her feelings about living with her chronic pain. The trial justice ruled that the question was relevant to the permanency of Strawderman’s injuries and not unduly prejudicial. A review of a motion for a new trial is only warranted if the judge was clearly mistaken or neglected material evidence. The trial justice must evaluate evidence according to jury instructions, act as a juror by weighing evidence, and assess witness credibility. In this case, the trial justice determined that sufficient evidence supported the jury's finding that Strawderman’s injuries were exacerbated by the accident, thereby justifying her compensation and credibility. Consequently, no significant prejudicial errors were found in the evidentiary rulings, and the proper review process was followed in denying the motion for a new trial. The appeal is denied and the Superior Court's judgment is affirmed. At the time of the accident, Joseph was driving his father Giorgio's vehicle, while Strawderman was already experiencing pain from a prior motorcycle accident in 1982.