Frances Parker, Etc. v. John W. Poole, M.D.
111 A.3d 101
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2015Background
- Frances Parker, individually and as general administratrix of the Estate of Dale Parker, sues Dr. Poole for medical malpractice following colon cancer surgery.
- Mr. Parker underwent transverse colon resection on Feb. 19, 2009, with an open anastomosis, and initially showed no intraoperative difficulties.
- Between Feb. 22–23, Mr. Parker developed complications; a dehiscence prompted a second operation on Feb. 24 to repair the site.
- During the second surgery, murky wound fluid was observed; defendant resected the anastomosis absent a visible hole or perforation, citing concern about potential future sepsis.
- Plaintiff alleges negligent first anastomosis causing a leak and sepsis, and that defendant should have performed an ileostomy and drainage to allow healing before a re-anastomosis.
- The defense contends the source and timing of sepsis are contested; trial excluded defendant’s deposition testimony about the cause of sepsis, and the jury found no deviation from standard care.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether deposition testimony on cause of sepsis was admissible | Admissible as party-admission under NJRE 803(b)(1), not speculative. | Deposition testimony was speculative and should be excluded. | Depositional cause-of-sepsis testimony admissible under 803(b)(1). |
| Whether the court properly applied NJRE 701 to party-opponent statements | Rule 701 does not bar party admissions; physician can testify about causation as non-expert. | Testimony is speculative and improperly functions as expert opinion. | Court erred in treating as improper speculative testimony; admissions allowed. |
| Whether exclusion of deposition testimony violated NJRE 403 | Exclusion was improper given high probative value and centrality to causation. | Exclusion was appropriate due to prejudice and lack of proper foundation. | Exclusion reversed; probative value not outweighed by prejudice; error. |
| Whether exclusion was capable of producing an unjust result requiring a new trial | The deposition evidence could have altered the outcome given credibility issues. | No substantial impact on verdict if excluded. | Exclusion was capable of producing an unjust result; reversed and remanded for new trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hutchinson v. Atl. City Med. Ctr.-Mainland, 314 N.J. Super. 468 (App. Div. 1998) (treating doctors may be deposed for factual treatment issues and causation)
- Rogotzki v. Schept, 91 N.J. Super. 135 (App. Div. 1966) (t treating physician may respond to expert-like inquiries about treatment)
- Lanzet v. Greenberg, 126 N.J. 168 (1991) (approval of Rogotzki’s approach to treating physicians' testimony)
- Stigliano v. Connaught Labs., Inc., 140 N.J. 305 (1995) (treating doctors' testimony about causes is admissible; probative value outweighs prejudice)
- Donlin v. Aramark Corp., 162 F.R.D. 149 (D. Utah 1995) (party admissions may be used despite speculative or opinion form)
- United States v. Ammar, 714 F.2d 238 (3d Cir. 1983) (admissions do not require personal knowledge foundations)
- Mahlandt v. Wild Canid Survival & Research Ctr., Inc., 588 F.2d 626 (8th Cir. 1978) (party admissions not constrained by personal knowledge)
- Jewell v. CSX Transp., Inc., 135 F.3d 361 (6th Cir. 1998) (trustworthiness not required for party-opponent admissions)
- United States v. Pinalto, 771 F.2d 457 (10th Cir. 1985) (party admissions not barred by personal-knowledge requirements in some contexts)
- Goff v. City of Newark, not included (not included) (placeholder to ensure formatting compliance)