Dawkins v. Siwicki
2011 R.I. LEXIS 83
R.I.2011Background
- Plaintiff injured her left wrist in August 1998 after a fall treated by Dr. Siwicki at Kent County Hospital ER.
- Siwicki diagnosed a sprain based on X-rays; plaintiff believed there was a fracture and sought further evaluation.
- Plaintiff later developed a nonunion, avascular necrosis, and arthritis leading to multiple surgeries beginning January 1999.
- Defendant’s care included treating the injury as a sprain and advising follow-up with her physician; plaintiff contends she should have been told a fracture could be occult and required subsequent X-rays.
- Plaintiff smoked heavily throughout treatment; expert testimony linked smoking to poorer bone healing and nonunion, while defendants argued standard care did not require additional X-rays or a thumb-spica splint.
- Jury returned a verdict for defendant; plaintiff appealed raising multiple procedural and evidentiary challenges about smoking evidence and other pretrial and trial rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly admitted smoking evidence | Dawkins argues Rule 406 and prejudice; smoking evidence was irrelevant to pre-injury healing. | Siwicki contends habit/routine evidence and post-surgical smoking are probative; prejudicial impact should be controlled. | Admissible; trial judge properly limited scope and allowed habit/routine evidence within discretion. |
| Whether the pretrial DiPetrillo hearing was required | DiPetrillo hearing needed to test reliability of smoking-bone-healing theories. | Not a novel theory; no Daubert/DiPetrillo hearing required. | Not required; trial court did not abuse discretion in denying DiPetrillo hearing. |
| Whether the trial court erred by denying a motion in limine to exclude smoking evidence | Smoking evidence should have been excluded or severely limited under Rule 403. | Evidence probative to issues; limited presentation and preliminary instructions curbed prejudice. | No reversible error; court properly balanced probative value and potential prejudice. |
| Whether there was legally sufficient evidence of breach of standard of care | Uncontradicted evidence shows defendant failed to treat as fracture and to advise follow-up X-rays. | Conflicting expert testimony on standard of care; evidence supports jury’s determination. | Sufficient conflicting evidence; jury could reasonably find no breach of standard of care. |
| Whether plaintiff was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on comparative negligence | Smoking caused nonunions; liability should be reduced accordingly. | Jury did not reach comparative negligence; insufficient post-injury- vs pre-injury-smoking distinction. | Waived; verdict form/instructions not objected to; issue not properly preserved for review. |
Key Cases Cited
- DiPetrillo v. Dow Chemical Co., 729 A.2d 677 (R.I. 1999) (Daubert-like gatekeeping in expert testimony; Rule 104(a) guidance)
- Hindle v. Travelers Insurance Co., 748 A.2d 256 (R.I. 2000) (broad discretion in discovery rulings; abuse of discretion standard)
- Colvin v. Lekas, 731 A.2d 718 (R.I. 1999) (discovery rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Gormley v. Vartian, 121 R.I. 770, 403 A.2d 256 (1979) (purpose of Rule 33 to prevent surprise in discovery)