Malinou v. Miriam Hospital
24 A.3d 497
| R.I. | 2011Background
- Etta E. Malinou, 94, with dysphagia and dementia, received care at Miriam Hospital Jan 10–13, 2003; plaintiff, her son, fed her and declined hospice and feeding tube.
- On Jan 13, 2003, after a feeding event, Mrs. Malinou suffered respiratory failure and died; autopsy was discussed but not performed.
- Plaintiff sought damages for medical negligence and wrongful death; discovery extended multiple times, with expert disclosure deadlines and depositions delayed.
- Two of plaintiff’s proffered causation experts (Polsby, Andrew) were precluded from testifying due to noncompliance with court orders; plaintiff appealed.
- Superior Court granted summary judgment for all defendants, ruling expert testimony missing and the loss-of-chance theory and other theories not established; spoliation and death-certificate claims were addressed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether preclusion of Polsby and Andrew was proper | Polsby/Andrew were improperly precluded for scheduling issues. | Plaintiff repeatedly violated discovery deadlines; sanctions appropriate. | Preclusion was proper; no abuse of discretion. |
| Whether summary judgment was proper on medical negligence | There are genuine issues of material fact as to standard of care and causation. | Expert testimony required; plaintiff failed to prove deviation and causation. | Summary judgment affirmed; no competent expert evidence of breach or causation. |
| Whether the loss-of-chance doctrine applies | Loss of chance established causation for death. | Loss-of-chance not independently actionable and plaintiff failed causation proof. | Doctrine not adopted; even if considered, no causation shown. |
| Whether Lifespan spoliation or death-certificate claims defeat summary judgment | Destruction of phone records and false death certificate show negligence and spoliation. | Spoliation is evidentiary, not standalone claim; death certificate not false. | Summary judgment proper; no private action for spoliation or false certificate established. |
Key Cases Cited
- Foley v. St. Joseph Health Services of Rhode Island, 899 A.2d 1271 (R.I. 2006) (expert testimony required to prove breach when not obvious)
- Boccasile v. Cajun Music Limited, 694 A.2d 686 (R.I. 1997) (expert testimony needed to establish standard of care and breach)
- Contois v. Town of West Warwick, 865 A.2d 1019 (R.I. 2004) (loss of chance doctrine limits and requires proximate causation)
- Mandros v. Prescod, 948 A.2d 304 (R.I. 2008) (loss of chance discussed; not adopted as independent theory)
- Desjarlais v. USAA Insurance Co., 824 A.2d 1272 (R.I. 2003) (loss of society/companion claims derivative to underlying tort)
- Tancrelle v. Friendly Ice Cream Corp., 756 A.2d 748 (R.I. 2000) (spoliation concerns and evidentiary standards)
- Allen v. South County Hospital, 945 A.2d 289 (R.I. 2008) (extensive discovery extensions; not controlling for here)