Jennifer O'Connor v. Newport Hospital
111 A.3d 317
| R.I. | 2015Background
- Jennifer O’Connor sued Newport Hospital, Dr. Gita Pensa, and Newport Emergency Physicians for negligence and lack of informed consent after a stroke following post‑op treatment; jury returned verdict for defendants after a three‑week trial.
- Plaintiff’s only standard‑of‑care expert was Dr. Eddy Lang (Canadian emergency physician); voir dire occurred before the jury about his qualifications and familiarity with U.S. standards.
- Defense counsel cross‑examined Dr. Lang and then sought admission of three documents (two ABEM webpage printouts and one purported ABEM email) bearing on ABEM eligibility and whether Canadian training met ABEM requirements; the trial justice admitted exhibits A–C over plaintiff’s objections.
- Trial justice nevertheless found Dr. Lang qualified to testify; defense emphasized his lack of U.S. board certification and nationality in closing; jury found no breach of the standard of care.
- On appeal plaintiff argued (1) admission of exhibits A–C was erroneous (authentication, hearsay), (2) the verdict form’s wording (“physician practicing in the United States at a community hospital”) was biased, and (3) these errors were prejudicial and warranted a new trial. The Supreme Court vacated and remanded for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility/authentication of web printouts (Exhibits A & B) | Exhibits were unauthenticated internet printouts; Dr. Lang could not authenticate them; admission abused discretion | Exhibits were on ABEM site, cumulative of Dr. Lang’s admissions, and not challenged specifically; inherent reliability of ABEM website | Trial court abused discretion: insufficient authentication; admission of A & B was clearly erroneous |
| Admissibility/authentication of email (Exhibit C) | Exhibit C was unauthenticated hearsay; Dr. Lang had no personal knowledge of sender/recipient; insufficient circumstantial proof | Email corroborated Dr. Lang’s lack of ABEM eligibility and was cumulative | Admission of C also abused discretion: Dr. Lang’s brief reading insufficient to authenticate the email |
| Hearsay / residual exception (Rule 803(24)) | Documents were hearsay and the trial justice made no Rule 803(24) findings; residual exception not shown | Documents had trustworthiness and were proper under catch‑all due to being official ABEM materials | Documents were hearsay and trial justice failed to make requisite findings; catch‑all not satisfied; admission violated Rule 802 |
| Prejudice / verdict form language | Improper exhibits plus verdict question wording emphasizing "practicing in the United States" unfairly highlighted Dr. Lang’s nationality and U.S. board status and likely influenced verdict | Error (if any) was harmless because facts were cumulative, limiting instruction was given, and Dr. Lang had already admitted lack of U.S. board certification | Combined effect of erroneously admitted exhibits and verdict‑form language was prejudicial; judgment vacated and case remanded for new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Notarantonio v. Notarantonio, 941 A.2d 138 (R.I. 2008) (admissibility of evidence lies within trial justice’s discretion)
- Sheeley v. Memorial Hospital, 710 A.2d 161 (R.I. 1998) (adoption of national standard of care in medical malpractice)
- McGovern v. Bank of America, N.A., 91 A.3d 853 (R.I. 2014) (authentication is a low threshold; flexible approach under Rule 901)
- Oliveira, State v., 774 A.2d 893 (R.I. 2001) (authentication need not be by particular means; sufficiency standard explained)
- Marley v. Providence Journal Co., 134 A.2d 180 (R.I. 1957) (not every improper admission requires new trial; reversal if evidence probably influenced verdict)
- Heuser v. Goldstein, 267 A.2d 420 (R.I. 1970) (prejudice requires examination of facts attendant to admission and probable effect)
- Bailey v. Huling, 377 A.2d 220 (R.I. 1977) (improper evidence reversible if it reasonably tended to influence determination of real issue)