Brenda Miller, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Connie Rae Scribner, 329 P.3d 956

Brenda Miller, as personal representative for Connie Scribner, sued Dr. Beyer and Emergency Medical Physicians for wrongful death arising from Scribner's emergency room treatment in 2005.
The first trial (2012) ended in a mistrial after defense questioned Scribner as a drug addict; the court found the question improper and prejudicial.
The district court later awarded Miller about $60,000 in costs and fees related to the mistrial; a second trial ensued in 2013 with a verdict for Defendants.
Miller moved for a new trial alleging undesignated expert testimony and undisclosed theories (CURB-65/PORT/BUN/sepsis) were improperly admitted and prejudicial.
The district court denied Miller’s motion for a new trial; Defendants cross-appealed challenging the mistrial ruling and related orders, which the Court affirmed.
On appeal, the Wyoming Supreme Court treated timeliness of the mistrial appeal as timely and evaluated abuse of discretion in the mistrial ruling and in admissibility of the contested expert testimony; it upheld the district court’s rulings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of appeal from mistrial and costs orders	Miller argues Defendants' cross-appeal was untimely as to the mistrial and costs orders.	Beyer/EM Physicians contend the mistrial order and related costs were appealable and properly appealed.	Timely cross-appeal; mistrial orders not appealable alone but timely as part of a fully determined controversy.
Admission of Dr. Bernhisel's undesignated sepsis testimony	Bernhisel's SIRS/sepsis opinions were undesignated and unfairly surprised Miller.	Bernhisel's testimony was within the defense experts’ designated scope and fairly admitted with curative measures.	No abuse; testimony admitted with safeguards; any surprise waived by not requesting a continuance.
Admissibility of CURB-65/PORT and BUN testimony	CURB-65/PORT and BUN-related testimony was undesignated or outside designation and confusing to the jury.	Testimony was within expert designations or appropriately tied to rebuttal evidence; curative instructions given.	Admissible; no reversible error; jury instructions clarified limits on the use of CURB-65/PORT.
Denial of Plaintiff's new trial based on challenged testimony	Undesignated testimony and the sepsis theory deprived Miller of a fair trial.	Rulings were within trial court discretion and did not prejudice Miller beyond cure.	No abuse of discretion; new trial properly denied.

Terry v. Sweeney, 10 P.3d 554 (Wy. 2000) (mistrial/appealability and piecemeal review considerations)
Dollarhide v. Bancroft, 239 P.3d 1168 (Wy. 2010) (abuse of discretion in mistrial rulings; on-site assessment of prejudice)
In re MC, 299 P.3d 75 (Wy. 2013) (failure to object to surprise waives prejudice claims)
In re E.R.C.K., 314 P.3d 1170 (Wy. 2013) (timeliness and scope of appellate review for appealability)
Sundance Mtn. Resort, Inc. v. Union Tel. Co., 150 P.3d 191 (Wy. 2007) (standard for reviewing discretionary trial court rulings)