Jaynes v. McConnell, 238 Ariz. 211

Jaynes had a rectovaginal lesion; TRUS exams by Dr. Elizabeth McConnell (May and Sept 2007) showed a 1.5 cm mass; Jaynes delayed surgery due to Ehlers-Danlos syndrome risks.
McConnell faxed her Sept. 13, 2007 TRUS interpretation to referring surgeon Dr. Marc Goldblatt but did not place a phone call; Goldblatt and McConnell did not hold a documented prompt follow-up, and no further follow-up visit occurred then.
In 2011 the lesion was diagnosed as Stage IV neuroendocrine carcinoid rectal cancer; Jaynes sued for medical malpractice against Goldblatt and McConnell.
At trial the jury found for Jaynes, apportioned fault to Goldblatt (75%) and Jaynes (25%), and allocated zero fault to McConnell; the court entered a non-final judgment for McConnell (Jan. 22, 2013) and later dismissed Goldblatt (Apr. 9, 2013).
Jaynes filed a Rule 59 motion for new trial against McConnell on Apr. 23, 2013 claiming (1) the Rule 59 motion was timely and (2) trial error in excluding testimony of McConnell’s expert about his personal practice; the trial court denied the motion as untimely and on the merits.
The appellate court reversed: it held the Rule 59 15-day clock runs from entry of a final, appealable judgment (triggered when Goldblatt was dismissed), and exclusion of the expert’s personal-practice testimony was reversible error requiring a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of Rule 59 motion	Jaynes: 15-day period runs from entry of final, appealable judgment; her Apr. 23 motion was within 15 days of finality (Apr. 9 dismissal)	McConnell: motion was untimely because it was filed more than 15 days after the Jan. 22, 2013 judgment in her favor	Court: Rule 59’s 15-day clock begins on entry of a final, appealable judgment; Jaynes’s motion was timely
Exclusion of expert personal-practice testimony	Jaynes: testimony that expert would personally call a referring physician in similar cases is relevant to standard of care and expert credibility; exclusion harmed her right to a fair jury determination	McConnell: personal practice testimony is irrelevant to the legal standard; any error was harmless because Goldblatt was the treating physician and would have acted similarly	Court: exclusion was erroneous and not harmless; personal-practice evidence is relevant to standard of care and credibility, and could affect causation and jury verdict — new trial required

Felipe v. Theme Tech Corp., 235 Ariz. 520 (App. 2014) (standard of review for legal questions; de novo review)
M-ll Ltd. P’ship v. Gommard, 235 Ariz. 166 (App. 2014) (procedural interpretation precedent cited)
Welch v. McClure, 123 Ariz. 161 (1979) (Rule 59 time limits are strict and generally not enlargable)
Smethers v. Campion, 210 Ariz. 167 (App. 2005) (expert’s personal practice testimony may be admissible and is relevant to standard of care and credibility)
Auto Servs. Co., Inc. v. KPMG, LLP, 537 F.3d 853 (8th Cir. 2008) (federal precedent treating Rule 59 time limit as tied to final judgment)
Bohack Corp. v. Iowa Beef Processors, Inc., 715 F.2d 703 (2d Cir. 1983) (non-final judgment not a ‘judgment’ for purposes of Rule 59 time limits)