Hagar v. Shull
2017 Ark. App. 185
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Darren Scott Hagar (age 42) presented to the ER on Jan. 15, 2010 with cough, chest/abdominal pain, and hemoptysis; ER physician Dr. Robert Shull examined him, heard rhonchi, diagnosed atelectasis/muscle strain, gave Lortab, and discharged him after viewing a same-day chest x-ray.
- The hospital radiologist later read the x-ray as suggesting pneumonia or atelectasis; Scott returned home, was found unresponsive that evening, brought back to the hospital, and pronounced dead.
- Autopsy attributed death to cardiomyopathy due to obesity with acute bronchopneumonia; toxicology showed multiple prescription drugs at therapeutic/subtherapeutic levels.
- Scott’s family sued Dr. Shull for medical negligence/wrongful death alleging failure to diagnose/admit for pneumonia; the hospital settled and was dismissed; case proceeded to trial against Dr. Shull.
- Plaintiff’s expert (Dr. Smoak) opined Shull breached the standard of care by not admitting/treating pneumonia; defense experts (Dr. Flamik et al.) attributed death primarily to cardiomyopathy and mixed drug effects and testified admission was not required.
- Jury returned a unanimous verdict for Dr. Shull; appellant appeals, raising evidentiary and jury-instruction issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hagar) | Defendant's Argument (Shull) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of IT specialist (Shawn Dowdy) testimony about whether Shull viewed the Jan. 15 x‑ray | Dowdy's computer-log evidence would show Shull did not view the x‑ray before discharge, impeaching Shull's testimony | The log does not reliably identify the viewer (accounts can be left signed in); Dowdy had no basis to contradict Shull | Exclusion was not an abuse of discretion; log did not definitively contradict Shull and no reversible error shown |
| Limits on cross-examining Shull about the Dec. 2009 x‑ray and whether he accessed prior films | Hagar sought to show Shull had access to, but did not view, the 2009 x‑ray and wanted Shull to compare films to impeach his diagnosis | Shull denied seeing the 2009 film; Dowdy and system logs sufficiently showed access and possible views; expert comparison was for experts | No reversible error; trial court allowed relevant questioning and plaintiff met his objectives through Dowdy and logs |
| Admission of evidence about source of medications found in decedent’s system | Source irrelevant and prejudicial; allowed jury to infer drug‑seeking and blame the decedent | Source is relevant to comparative‑fault defense because mixed/unsanctioned medications could have contributed to death | Admission was proper; source evidence was relevant to defendant’s comparative‑fault defense |
| Single verdict interrogatory combining negligence and wrongful death | Required separate interrogatories to distinguish negligence from wrongful‑death causation | Wrongful‑death claim is derivative of negligence; single interrogatory was adequate and not misleading | No abuse of discretion; single interrogatory was permissible and appellant failed to show prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Poff v. Elkins, 449 S.W.3d 315 (affirming standard for reviewing exclusion of evidence)
- Herrington v. Ford Motor Co., Inc., 376 S.W.3d 476 (scope of cross‑examination is within trial court discretion)
- Bd. of Comm’rs of Little Rock Mun. Water Works v. Rollins, 945 S.W.2d 384 (standard for limiting cross‑examination)
- Watkins v. Paragould Light & Water Comm’n, 504 S.W.3d 606 (appellant’s burden to show reversible error)
- Advocat, Inc. v. Sauer, 111 S.W.3d 346 (trial‑court discretion on verdict forms and related causes of action)
- Keene v. State, 938 S.W.2d 859 (affirming exclusion where proffered evidence did not convincingly contradict witness)
- Howard v. Adams, 490 S.W.3d 678 (prejudice requirement to predicate error on evidentiary rulings)