961 N.E.2d 1096
Mass. App. Ct.2012Background
- Plaintiffs allege medical malpractice against the clinic, Dr. Aaronson, and the professional corporation after Campbell suffered a severe hypoglycemic episode during a glucose tolerance test and was later involved in a serious car crash.
- Following partial tribunals, the case proceeded against the remaining defendants and the jury returned a verdict of no negligence.
- Plaintiffs challenge trial court rulings on expert testimony, a missing jury instruction about a safety regulation, closing arguments, and denial of a directed verdict.
- The court reverses on the ground that the judge omission of a jury instruction on 105 CMR § 180.042(A)(3) prejudiced the substantial rights of the plaintiffs.
- Evidence at trial showed clinic procedures, manuals, and supervisory structures related to hypoglycemia risks and regulatory compliance were inadequate or ill-defined.
- Various witnesses and a Department of Public Health representative testified about the regulation’s requirements, the clinic’s on-site supervision, and emergency protocols.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the trial court err by not instructing on the regulation? | Campbell argues the regulation’s relevance should be instructed to the jury. | Clinician defendants contend no explicit instruction was required. | Reversal required; instruction on regulation warranted |
| Was the expert testimony properly admitted and gatekeeping adequately performed? | Campbell contends the judge improperly curtailed expert qualifications. | Defendants maintain proper discretion to admit experts. | Guidance issued; issues not decided on remand |
| Did the judge’s handling of expert qualification communications create reversible error? | Campbell asserts misleading communication of ruling to jury. | Defendants argue no reversible error in communication. | Not addressed on remand; guidance provided |
Key Cases Cited
- Follansbee v. Ohse, 293 Mass. 48 (Mass. 1935) (violation evidence supports negligence but not conclusive)
- Guinan v. Famous Players-Lasky Corp., 267 Mass. 501 (Mass. 1929) (regulatory evidence of standard of care proper)
- Perry v. Medeiros, 369 Mass. 836 (Mass. 1976) (expert testimony on building code violation not required by inspector)
- Matteo v. Livingstone, 40 Mass. App. Ct. 658 (Mass. App. Ct. 1996) (excludes building code testimony in negligence case)
- Hopkins v. Medeiros, 48 Mass. App. Ct. 600 (Mass. App. Ct. 2000) (judge must instruct on law governing regulatory duty where substantial evidence supports)
- Anto n e l l i s v. Leibovich, 410 Mass. 568 (Mass. 1991) (gatekeeping and expert testimony standards guidance)