Chayce Collier v. Periclis Roussis, M.D.
E2016-01591-COA-R3-CV
Tenn. Ct. App.Aug 7, 2017Background
- In June 2009 the mother of plaintiff (a newborn who later developed cerebral palsy/developmental delay) had an allergic reaction to Ampicillin during labor at Fort Sanders; plaintiff sued the delivering physician (Dr. Roussis) and the hospital alleging negligent treatment during the reaction.
- Plaintiff alleged nurses failed to monitor/document blood pressures and that Dr. Roussis failed to administer epinephrine; suit tried to a jury and resulted in a defense verdict and dismissal.
- During trial two hospital nurses (Hensley and Ott) testified with newly recalled details (after being shown photos by hospital counsel) that a Dinamap monitor was used and blood pressures were observed — testimony inconsistent with their prior depositions and the medical record.
- A defense expert (Dr. Grandis) also offered previously undisclosed opinions at trial (e.g., about meconium) that plaintiff contends were not disclosed as required.
- Trial court admitted the newly disclosed nurse and some expert testimony, granted a directed verdict limiting consideration of the nurses’ failure-to-chart as causation, denied plaintiff’s mistrial motion, and excluded post-2009 literature per a motion in limine; plaintiff appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by admitting nurses’ previously undisclosed, changed testimony | Hospital failed to supplement discovery under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 26.05 and Rule 37.03; admission prejudiced Collier | Nurses were nonparties so hospital had no duty to supplement; testimony was consistent with hospital theory | Court held hospital had duty to supplement employee witnesses; admitting the new nurse testimony was error and not harmless — vacated and remanded for new trial |
| Whether trial court erred by admitting previously undisclosed expert testimony (Dr. Grandis re: meconium) | Grandis’s new opinion was not disclosed in Rule 26 disclosures; admission was ambush and prejudicial | If counsel was unaware of the expert’s new opinion, defendant lacked notice and thus cannot be faulted | Court held admission of Grandis’s undisclosed meconium opinion was error and not harmless (relevant to causation) |
| Whether trial court should have excluded other defense expert testimony as speculative/unreliable | Some defense experts relied on idiosyncratic experience or animal studies and disagreed with literature; plaintiff says opinions were unreliable | Defense argued expert experience and methodology made testimony admissible; weight for jury | Court applied Tenn. Rules 702/703 and McDaniel factors, held these challenges went to weight not admissibility — no error in admitting Baumann or Philips testimony |
| Whether trial court erred by directing verdict / instructing jury to disregard failure-to-chart as cause | Failure to chart BP readings was relevant to whether BP was monitored; directing verdict could confuse jury and improperly remove disputed factual issue | Defendants argued failure-to-chart could not be the cause of injury as a matter of law | Court held directed verdict on that issue was improper because reasonable minds could differ; it likely could confuse jury |
Key Cases Cited
- Mann v. Alpha Tau Omega Fraternity, 380 S.W.3d 42 (Tenn. 2012) (discusses variable meanings of “party” and contextual interpretation)
- Monceret v. Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility, 29 S.W.3d 455 (Tenn. 2000) (interpreting scope of “party” in disciplinary rule and related ethics discussion)
- Stanfield v. Neblett, 339 S.W.3d 22 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010) (explains Rule 37.03 exclusion for undisclosed expert opinions and unfair surprise)
- McDaniel v. CSX Transp., Inc., 955 S.W.2d 257 (Tenn. 1997) (sets nonexclusive reliability factors for expert testimony under Rules 702/703)
- Brown v. Crown Equip. Corp., 181 S.W.3d 268 (Tenn. 2005) (discusses trial court gatekeeping and expert reliability under McDaniel/Daubert principles)
- Hall v. Crenshaw, 449 S.W.3d 463 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2014) (addresses imputation of employee knowledge to corporate defendant and communications with employee witnesses)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999) (trial court has broad latitude to assess reliability of expert testimony)