Donna Hamilton v. Jaiyoung Ryu, M.D., 16-0856

Background

Petitioner Donna Hamilton alleged permanent left ulnar nerve injury after a February 12, 2012 total elbow arthroplasty performed by Dr. Jaiyoung Ryu. She sued for medical negligence; other defendants and claims were dismissed before trial, leaving negligence claim against Ryu.
Pre‑op consent signed by petitioner (via physician assistant Jon Kline) listed nerve damage as a risk and warned that residents/physician assistants might perform parts of the procedure.
Post‑op testing showed sensory ulnar nerve damage; Dr. Ryu testified the neuropathy is a known complication of the operation. Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Scott Desman, opined the full elbow replacement was unnecessary and a radial head excision would have avoided ulnar nerve risk.
At trial petitioner sought to challenge necessity of the surgery and assert lack of informed consent; she also attempted to introduce evidence (surgery schedule, video deposition of Dr. Bruce Guberman) and elicit testimony about who transposed the ulnar nerve and whether Ryu was present.
The jury found for Dr. Ryu, concluding petitioner failed to prove negligence. The circuit court denied petitioner’s motion for a new trial; petitioner appealed, challenging evidentiary rulings regarding undisclosed opinions, excluded experts, and limits on certain evidence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admitting Ryu’s testimony about taking “special care” of ulnar nerve while excluding petitioner’s evidence (surgery schedule, resident action)	Hamilton: admitting Ryu’s statements but excluding surgery schedule confused the issue and hid that Ryu was absent when the resident transposed the nerve	Ryu: standard of care during surgery was not contested by Hamilton with expert proof; surgery schedule and causation evidence were irrelevant or not expert‑substantiated	Court: No error. Plaintiff lacked expert proof that surgical performance breached standard; exclusion was within discretion and consistent with Med. Prof. Liability Act. Jury heard informed consent theory and rejected it.
Exclusion of Dr. Bruce Guberman’s causation opinion (non‑orthopedist)	Hamilton: Guberman should be allowed to testify that the arthroplasty caused the injury	Ryu: Guberman, board‑certified in unrelated fields and without elbow arthroplasty experience, was unqualified to render that opinion	Court: No abuse of discretion excluding Guberman’s causation testimony; plaintiff had alternative expert (Desman) who could offer causation.
Allowing Ryu to offer allegedly undisclosed expert opinions at trial (e.g., radial head resection contraindicated; “special care”)	Hamilton: Failure to object alleged, but argues plain error because Ryu offered undisclosed expert opinions that prejudiced her	Ryu: He was disclosed as a witness and expert; testimony about how he performed surgery was lay/operative description; his contraindication opinion was in his deposition and thus known	Court: No plain error. Testimony described operative conduct (not expert surprise) and the contraindication opinion was previously disclosed.
Admission of Dr. David Glaser’s video deposition (allegedly undisclosed opinions; unedited with objections)	Hamilton: She claims ambush by und isc losed opinions and prejudicial playing of unedited deposition including objections	Ryu: Glaser’s disclosure covered the opinions; deposition was taken earlier and plaintiff failed to designate excerpts or timely object	Court: No error. Glaser’s opinions were disclosed; plaintiff waived objection to playing entire deposition by failing to respond to defense designation; no prejudice shown.

Key Cases Cited

In re: State Public Bldg. Asbestos Litigation, 193 W.Va. 119, 454 S.E.2d 413 (W. Va. 1995) (trial judge may weigh evidence and credibility when granting new trial; appellate review limited to abuse of discretion)
Rodriguez v. Consolidation Coal Co., 206 W.Va. 317, 524 S.E.2d 672 (W. Va. 1999) (restating standard for appellate review of trial court’s new‑trial determinations)
Walker v. Monongahela Power Co., 147 W.Va. 825, 131 S.E.2d 736 (W. Va. 1963) (verdict review requires assuming legitimate inferences favoring verdict winner)
Cecil v. D & M Inc., 205 W.Va. 162, 517 S.E.2d 27 (W. Va. 1999) (admission/exclusion of evidence reviewed for abuse of discretion)
State v. Kopa, 173 W.Va. 43, 311 S.E.2d 412 (W. Va. 1983) (evidentiary rulings committed to trial court discretion)
Mayhorn v. Logan Med. Found., 193 W.Va. 42, 454 S.E.2d 87 (W. Va. 1994) (trial court discretion to determine whether witness is qualified to offer expert opinion)
State v. Miller, 194 W.Va. 3, 459 S.E.2d 114 (W. Va. 1995) (elements required to invoke plain‑error doctrine)