293 A.3d 842
R.I.2023Background
- In 2014 Vecchio underwent surgery at Women & Infants Hospital and later developed compartment syndrome, which she alleges resulted from prolonged restrained positioning during the operation.
- Vecchio filed medical-malpractice claims in 2017; the Superior Court issued scheduling orders requiring expert disclosures, with multiple extensions (final extension to Feb. 16, 2021).
- Initial expert disclosures: Dr. Brewster disclosed causation opinions; Dr. Karam was disclosed for standard-of-care but, after deposition, recanted that opinion.
- Vecchio timely served a supplemental disclosure (Feb. 15, 2021) stating Dr. Brewster would testify as to causation. After reviewing additional materials (Paquette), counsel informed defense (June 11, 2021) Brewster would also testify on postoperative standard of care; the defense then canceled his deposition and moved for a protective order.
- The Superior Court granted the protective order precluding Brewster from offering standard-of-care opinions. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and quashed that order, holding the trial justice abused her discretion because supplementation complied with the Rules, discovery was ongoing, and no prejudice was shown.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial justice abused discretion by precluding supplementation of an expert's opinions under Super. R. Civ. P. 37 | Vecchio: supplement was proper trial-preparation under Rule 33(c); timely disclosed; no trial date or discovery certification meant no prejudice | W&I: plaintiff violated scheduling orders and supplemented verbally after deadline without leave; Rule 37 sanctions appropriate | Court: abused discretion — supplementation complied with discovery duties; preclusion was too drastic absent persistent noncompliance or prejudice |
| Whether the Feb. 15, 2021 supplemental disclosure (Brewster — causation only) barred later supplementation after Brewster reviewed Paquette materials | Vecchio: continuing duty to supplement; counsel promptly notified defense upon learning of additional opinion | W&I: late, verbal supplementation four months after deadline and days before deposition disrupted scheduling and fairness | Court: continuing duty to supplement permits update; discovery still open and defense had opportunity to depose/reschedule; no showing of unfair prejudice |
| Whether preclusion was a proportional sanction here given the case history and pandemic-related scheduling difficulties | Vecchio: drastic and inequitable remedy; parties struggled to schedule experts during COVID; court had previously extended deadlines | W&I: court permissibly balanced prior extensions and the need to enforce deadlines; fairness and medical-malpractice calendar require compliance | Court: preclusion reserved for repeated, egregious violations; record did not show persistent noncompliance or prejudice — sanction was disproportionate |
Key Cases Cited
- Verizon New England Inc. v. Savage, 267 A.3d 647 (R.I. 2022) (scope of certiorari review and record examination)
- Boss v. Chamberland, 272 A.3d 1037 (R.I. 2022) (Rule 37 sanctions reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Malinou v. Miriam Hospital, 24 A.3d 497 (R.I. 2011) (preclusion of expert testimony is an available Rule 37 sanction in appropriate cases)
- Devaney v. St. Thomas More Catholic Church, 285 A.3d 23 (R.I. 2022) (deferential appellate review of discovery sanctions)
- International Depository, Inc. v. State, 603 A.2d 1119 (R.I. 1992) (trial court discretion in selecting appropriate discovery sanction)