Lisa Brown, Administrator v. Berkeley Family Medicine Associates
16-0572
| W. Va. | Sep 1, 2017Background
- Decedent (Ronald Brown) presented to Berkeley Family Medicine Associates (BFMA) on Aug 12, 2011 with cough, shortness of breath, chest pain; PA Heather Jewell noted Enbrel use, exam relatively benign but crackles on auscultation; chest x-ray and CT suggested pneumonitis and he was sent to hospital and prescribed Levaquin with follow-up.
- Decedent’s condition worsened; he returned Aug 17, 2011, was transferred to a hospital and died Aug 21, 2011.
- Petitioner Lisa Brown (administrator of the estate) sued BFMA and Jewell alleging deviation from the standard of care causing death; supervising physician Dr. Reisenweber was later dismissed pretrial.
- At trial the jury found Jewell breached the standard of care but that breach did not proximately cause the death; BFMA was found not negligent.
- Petitioner moved for a new trial and raised multiple evidentiary and procedural errors on appeal; the circuit court denied the new trial and the Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Brown’s Argument | BFMA/Jewell’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial limits on counsel language (e.g., forbidding words like “rule,” “danger”) | Limits improperly constrained counsel and prejudiced Brown’s presentation | Limits prevented misleading/inflammatory argument and were within court discretion | Affirmed — trial court acted within discretion; no prejudice or manifest injustice |
| Exclusion of repealed statute (§ 30-3-16) as exhibit | Statute reflected required PA standard of care and was relevant | Admission risked juror confusion; portions were read into record anyway | Affirmed — exclusion not an abuse; relevant portions were in the record |
| Exclusion of BFMA PA job description (post‑period version) | Job description was relevant to duties/supervision | Document was a later revision and not relevant | Affirmed — court properly excluded but Brown could question witnesses and read portions into record |
| Admissibility of defense expert interpreting radiologist’s CT impressions | Such testimony improperly vouched for radiologist’s views | Expert gave his own interpretation of the radiologist’s report | Affirmed — expert’s interpretation was admissible as his view of the report |
| Testimony by supervising physician about PA’s skills and alternative treatment plan | Testimony improperly bolstered Jewell and invaded issues | Reisenweber was disclosed as expert and could testify from his supervisory experience | Affirmed — admissible under Rules 701/702 as relevant expert/opinion testimony |
| Denial of directed verdict/new trial re: comparative fault (decedent’s delay) | No evidence supported decedent’s comparative negligence; Brown entitled to JMOL | Brown failed to preserve the JMOL challenge and it was moot given no liability | Affirmed — issue not preserved and moot because jury found no proximate causation |
| Batson challenge to peremptory strike of an African‑American male juror | Strike was racially motivated | Strike was race‑neutral (juror likely to identify with decedent) | Affirmed — trial court’s finding not reversed; no purposeful discrimination shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Sydenstricker v. Mohan, 217 W. Va. 552 (2005) (standard for reviewing denial of new trial and deference to trial court)
- Tennant v. Marion Health Care Found., 194 W. Va. 97 (1995) (abuse of discretion for new trial; factual findings clearly erroneous standard)
- Jones v. Setser, 224 W. Va. 483 (2009) (trial court discretion over propriety of counsel argument)
- Brannon v. Riffle, 197 W. Va. 97 (1996) (de novo review for directed verdict/JMOL under Rule 50)
- Stephens v. Rakes, 235 W. Va. 555 (2015) (Batson framework applied in West Virginia)
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) (prohibition on race‑based peremptory strikes)