Braun v. Wollman
2024 S.D. 83
S.D.2024Background
- Samantha Braun sued Radena Wollman for personal injuries after Wollman rear-ended Braun’s car in 2017; Wollman admitted liability, so trial was on damages only.
- Braun claimed she suffered a traumatic brain injury and various physical, cognitive, and emotional issues as a result of the accident.
- During trial, some of Braun’s medical records were admitted into evidence over her objection; the court cited the business records exception to the hearsay rule.
- The jury awarded Braun $125,000, substantially less than the $6 million she requested.
- Braun appealed, arguing the medical records were improperly admitted, prejudicing her right to a fair trial.
- The Supreme Court affirmed, finding error in the records’ admission but holding there was no prejudice requiring reversal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of medical records (business records exception) | Lacked proper foundation; Braun was not a qualified witness | Records authenticated by Braun’s testimony; alternatively admissible | Court erred in admitting as business records; foundation lacking |
| Admission of hearsay statements within records | Provider statements are hearsay and not subject to exception | Patient statements are party-opponent/non-hearsay or for diagnosis exception | Only patient’s statements admissible; provider statements are not |
| Relevance/Prejudice of highly personal info (e.g., Exhibit Y) | Should have been redacted for irrelevance and prejudice | Limiting instruction to jury was sufficient to cure any prejudice | Error to admit without redaction, but limiting instruction given |
| Prejudicial impact requiring reversal or new trial | Admission substantially prejudiced jury’s award | No substantial prejudice; similar info came in via other evidence/testimony | No prejudice; verdict affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Sawyer v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 619 N.W.2d 644 (S.D. 2000) (standards for admission of evidence and foundation for business records exception)
- State v. Stokes, 895 N.W.2d 351 (S.D. 2017) (distinction between authentication and foundation for business records)
- Field v. Trigg Cnty. Hosp., Inc., 386 F.3d 729 (6th Cir. 2004) (medical records exception only applies to statements by the person seeking treatment)
- Bombard v. Fort Wayne Newspapers, Inc., 92 F.3d 560 (7th Cir. 1996) (Rule 803(4) does not apply to provider statements in records)