Levesque v. Central Maine Medical Center
52 A.3d 933
Me.2012Background
- Levesque underwent aortobifemoral bypass at CMMC; bedsore developed during recovery.
- Treating physicians Ingraham and Rietschel were independent practitioners with hospital privileges, not CMMC employees.
- Levesque served a notice of claim in 2007 alleging professional negligence, naming CMMC and Ingraham (but not Rietschel).
- Prelitigation screening found no deviation by Ingraham or CMMC; Rietschel’s conduct was not evaluated by the panel.
- Levesque later asserted a theory of apparent agency against Rietschel to hold CMMC liable; panel did not evaluate Rietschel’s acts; trial proceeded with Rietschel’s conduct at issue.
- Verdict found CMMC, its agents, including Rietschel and several nurses, negligent; damages awarded $420,000; post-trial motions denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mandatory prelitigation panel evaluation required for alleged negligence | Levesque argues panel did not evaluate Rietschel’s acts | CMMC contends proper panel review occurred; Rietschel not an employee | Yes; panel must evaluate claimed negligence before trial |
| Notice of claim sufficiency to encompass alleged agent | Notice implicitly included Rietschel via apparent agency | Rietschel was not named; not evaluated; not reasonably put on notice | Not satisfied; no panel evaluation of Rietschel warranted |
| Admissibility of habit/routine-practice evidence from nurses | Nurses’ routine practices are probative of habit; should be admitted | Court erred in excluding habit testimony | Remand; court should permit voir dire to establish foundation for habit evidence under MR Evid. 406 |
| Impact of improper inclusion of Rietschel’s negligence on verdict | Without panel evaluation, verdict flawed | N/A | Judgment vacated; remanded for proceedings excluding Rietschel’s alleged negligence |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Inverness Corp., 664 A.2d 1246 (Me. 1995) (elements of apparent agency reliability)
- In re Elijah R., 620 A.2d 282 (Me. 1993) (harmless-error assessment)
- Jacob v. Kippax, 2011 ME 1, 10 A.3d 1159 (Me. 2011) (evidentiary limits on habit evidence; discretionary rulings)
- Arel v. Poirier, 533 A.2d 1285 (Me. 1987) (habit and routine-practice standards; definition of habit)
- Smith v. Hawthorne, 2007 ME 72, 924 A.2d 1051 (Me. 2007) (purpose of prelitigation screening panel)