175 A.3d 484
R.I.2018Background
- On May 29, 2012, patient Stacia Aptt saw Dr. Michael Baaklini at his North Providence satellite office; he read blood results (later shown to belong to another patient) aloud and told her her "kidneys are gone," causing her acute emotional distress that night.
- Aptt discovered the next morning the lab paperwork bore another patient’s name and, after calling the office, learned her own blood work was normal; she alleged ongoing emotional harm and loss of trust in the doctor.
- At trial the parties gave sharply divergent accounts: Aptt testified she was traumatized and repeatedly questioned the diagnosis; Baaklini testified he thought only a minor abnormality might indicate a kidney stone, apologized the next day, and that Aptt was upset about lack of pain medication rather than the lab result.
- A Providence County jury found Baaklini negligent but concluded his negligence was not the proximate cause of Aptt’s injury, so it did not award damages.
- The trial justice granted Aptt a new trial (and alternatively offered an additur) after finding Aptt credible and Baaklini incredible; defendants appealed to the Rhode Island Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court vacated the new-trial order and remanded with instructions to reinstate the jury verdict, concluding the trial justice improperly substituted his credibility determination for the jury’s reasonable choice between conflicting testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial justice properly granted new trial after jury found no proximate cause | Trial justice should set aside verdict because jury reached wrong result; Aptt credible and suffered emotional distress from misdiagnosis | Jury’s verdict was reasonable based on conflicting testimony; trial justice impermissibly substituted his judgment for jury’s | New trial grant vacated; jury verdict reinstated — trial justice erred by overruling reasonable jury credibility finding |
| Standard for reviewing new-trial rulings | Trial justice may reweigh evidence and credibility if verdict against preponderance | Appellate court should defer unless trial justice overlooked material evidence or was clearly wrong | Affirmed deferential standard: trial justice’s superintending role limited when evidence permits reasonable differing conclusions |
| Whether trial justice could offer additur when jury awarded no damages | (Plaintiff sought new trial on damages; trial justice offered additur) | Defendants objected to additur as improper because no damages were awarded | Offering additur was error where jury found for defendant; that aspect noted as erroneous by the Court |
| Whether trial justice could sua sponte expand new trial scope to proximate cause | Trial justice expanded new trial beyond plaintiff’s motion (damages) | Defendants argued expansion improper; issue not addressed on appeal due to waiver | Court declined to address sua sponte expansion because defendants didn’t raise it on appeal (waived) |
Key Cases Cited
- Bates-Bridgmon v. Heong’s Market, Inc., 152 A.3d 1137 (R.I. 2017) (describing deferential review of trial-justice rulings on new-trial motions)
- Gomes v. Rosario, 79 A.3d 1262 (R.I. 2013) (trial justice’s role as superjuror weighing credibility)
- Free & Clear Co. v. Narragansett Bay Comm’n, 131 A.3d 1102 (R.I. 2016) (standard for upholding jury verdicts when evidence supports different conclusions)
- Humes v. Schaller, 99 A. 55 (R.I. 1916) (trial justice may set aside verdict that fails to administer substantial justice)
- Ruggieri v. Beauregard, 291 A.2d 413 (R.I. 1972) (obligation of trial justice to pass upon evidence and credibility in new-trial consideration)
- King v. Huntress, Inc., 94 A.3d 467 (R.I. 2014) (factfinder’s prerogative to choose which testimony to believe)
- Russian v. Lipet, 238 A.2d 369 (R.I. 1968) (trial justice may not disregard jury verdict merely because he would view credibility differently)
- Kasegian v. Mottram, 185 A.2d 450 (R.I. 1962) (upholding new trial only where evidence is gravely lacking)
- Pawtucket Redev. Agency v. Brown, 106 A.3d 893 (R.I. 2014) (example of vacating jury verdict where award had no rational basis in evidence)
- Cotrona v. Johnson & Wales Coll., 501 A.2d 728 (R.I. 1985) (additur traditionally used only to correct jury awards, not to create awards where none exist)
- Bowen Court Assocs. v. Ernst & Young, LLP, 818 A.2d 721 (R.I. 2003) (issues not included in appellate brief are waived)
- State v. Whitfield, 93 A.3d 1011 (R.I. 2014) (jury may consider a witness’s appearance, conduct, and demeanor when assessing credibility)