Jones v. Clinch
73 A.3d 80
D.C.2013Background
- Plaintiff Elvita Jones sued Dr. Thomas Clinch and Eye Doctors of Washington, P.C. alleging lack of informed consent for a Crystalens intraocular-lens procedure (medical malpractice) and a separate CPPA consumer-protection claim.
- The Crystalens consultation, phone contact, surgery, and most postoperative care occurred in Maryland; Dr. Clinch practices in Maryland.
- Eye Doctors is incorporated in the District of Columbia and has offices in both D.C. and Maryland.
- The trial court granted defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment dismissing the CPPA count (Count II) on choice-of-law grounds, applying Maryland law which exempts doctors from its consumer-protection statute.
- At trial on the malpractice claim the court excluded plaintiff’s proffered evidence comparing the Crystalens cost ($9,000) to a different procedure ($800) as irrelevant; the jury returned a verdict for defendants.
- Plaintiff appealed both the dismissal of the CPPA claim and the exclusion of cost-comparison evidence; the D.C. Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Choice of law: whether D.C. CPPA or Maryland law governs plaintiff’s CPPA claim | The radio advertisement plaintiff heard in D.C. brought the dispute within D.C. interests and CPPA should apply | Most operative contacts (consultation, misrepresentations, surgery, follow-up) occurred in Maryland, so Maryland law governs | Maryland has the greater governmental interest; Maryland law applies and CPPA claim properly dismissed |
| Exclusion of evidence: admissibility of comparative cost evidence ($9,000 vs $800) to show economic motive | Cost difference shows entrepreneurial motive and intent to profit, relevant to credibility/informed consent | The $800 procedure was not a viable alternative for plaintiff; cost comparison would mislead and be minimally probative | Trial court did not abuse discretion in excluding the evidence as confusing and of little probative value |
Key Cases Cited
- Drs. Groover, Christie & Merritt, P.C. v. Burke, 917 A.2d 1110 (D.C. 2007) (applied governmental-interests analysis in similar medical-consumer-protection dispute)
- District of Columbia v. Coleman, 667 A.2d 811 (D.C. 1995) (explaining Restatement §145 factors and governmental-interests choice-of-law approach in torts)
- Hercules & Co. v. Shama Restaurant Corp., 566 A.2d 31 (D.C. 1989) (choice-of-law issues are legal questions reviewed de novo)
- Washkoviak v. Student Loan Marketing Ass’n, 900 A.2d 168 (D.C. 2006) (requiring qualitative weighing of Restatement contacts)
- Bledsoe v. Crowley, 849 F.2d 639 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (when relationship centered in Maryland, Maryland’s regulatory interest is stronger)
- Scott v. United States, 953 A.2d 1082 (D.C. 2008) (trial court has broad discretion in determining relevance of evidence of bias or motive)
- Caulfield v. Stark, 893 A.2d 970 (D.C. 2006) (discussing applicability of CPPA to medical misrepresentations and the relevance of entrepreneurial motive)