Joseph Laplante v. Rhode Island Hospital
110 A.3d 261
| R.I. | 2015Background
- In Feb 2003 Laplante was admitted to Rhode Island Hospital after a car accident and discharged; he was readmitted weeks later and diagnosed with a fractured pelvis.
- Laplante sued (filed 2006) for medical malpractice and negligence claiming failure to diagnose the pelvic fracture and premature discharge due to lack of insurance.
- During discovery Laplante (then represented) repeatedly failed to identify expert witnesses and disobeyed court scheduling orders; a conditional dismissal was entered unless he disclosed experts by a deadline, which he missed.
- The trial justice barred Laplante from presenting expert testimony and permitted defendants to move on whether he could prevail without experts; defendants moved for summary judgment arguing expert proof was required and res ipsa did not apply.
- The hearing justice granted summary judgment, finding (1) expert testimony was necessary to prove standard of care and causation and (2) res ipsa loquitur did not apply because the injury was not shown to be caused by an instrumentality under defendants’ exclusive control and expert proof was lacking.
- Laplante appealed pro se; the Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed, holding he could not create triable issues without expert evidence and could not invoke res ipsa; it declined to consider alleged attorney misconduct raised for the first time on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether triable issues of fact exist without expert testimony | Laplante argued his records and assertions created factual disputes and a jury could decide without experts | Defendants argued medical standard and causation require expert proof; no material factual dispute exists | Court: No triable issue; expert testimony required to establish standard of care and causation in this case |
| Applicability of res ipsa loquitur | Laplante asserted res ipsa should allow inference of negligence without expert testimony | Defendants argued res ipsa is disfavored in medical malpractice and conditions (exclusive control, injury not occurring absent negligence) are unmet | Court: Res ipsa inapplicable—injury not shown to be within jury’s common knowledge, no evidence of exclusive control or exclusion of intervening causes |
| Sanction (exclusion of expert testimony / conditional dismissal) | Laplante contended exclusion and final judgment were disproportionate, blaming his former attorney’s conduct | Defendants supported sanction as justified by discovery violations and court orders | Court: Sanctions upheld implicitly by summary judgment ruling; procedural default precludes raising attorney-misconduct claim on appeal |
| Whether appellate court may consider attorney-misconduct claim raised for first time on appeal | Laplante argued his former counsel’s misconduct caused the procedural failures and should excuse sanctions | Defendants argued issue was not preserved below and cannot be raised first on appeal | Court: Refused to consider claim—issues not raised in trial court cannot be raised on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Beauregard v. Gouin, 66 A.3d 489 (R.I. 2013) (summary-judgment review standard and caution about the remedy)
- DeMaio v. Ciccone, 59 A.3d 125 (R.I. 2013) (affirmation standard for summary judgment)
- Malinou v. Miriam Hospital, 24 A.3d 497 (R.I. 2011) (expert testimony required to show deviation from medical standard except where negligence is obvious to layperson)
- Marshall v. Tomaselli, 118 R.I. 190 (R.I. 1977) (res ipsa loquitur elements and example of obvious negligence)
- Foley v. St. Joseph Health Services of Rhode Island, 899 A.2d 1271 (R.I. 2006) (delay and diagnostic issues in malpractice not generally within lay common knowledge)
- Wilkinson v. Vesey, 110 R.I. 606 (R.I. 1972) (res ipsa loquitur disfavored in medical malpractice and often requires expert support)
- McLaughlin v. Moura, 754 A.2d 95 (R.I. 2000) (res ipsa requires competent evidence of causal connection; cannot rest on speculation)
- Boccasile v. Cajun Music Ltd., 694 A.2d 686 (R.I. 1997) (plaintiff bears burden to produce competent evidence creating triable issue)
- Khan v. Singh, 975 A.2d 389 (N.J. 2009) (discussing res ipsa in context of retained foreign object)
- James v. Wormuth, 997 N.E.2d 133 (N.Y. 2013) (res ipsa applicable in foreign-object cases where object is unintentionally left in patient)