Phil Bartlett v. Dr. David Coppe., 159 A.3d 1065

Plaintiffs Phil and Natalie Bartlett sued Dr. David Coppe for medical malpractice after Mr. Bartlett developed a foot bone infection and required right foot amputation following treatment for a cellulitis ulcer at a wound-care center.
Plaintiffs alleged Coppe failed to apply appropriate wound-evaluation practices, causing delayed diagnosis and amputation, and claimed resulting economic and caregiving harms.
During discovery plaintiffs initially said they would not use an expert, but later identified a wound-care nurse, Lisa M. Burke, as an expert. Defendant moved to preclude her, arguing she was unqualified to opine on a physician’s standard of care.
The Superior Court excluded Nurse Burke as unqualified to opine on a physician/surgeon standard of care and ordered plaintiffs to disclose a qualified expert by a set deadline; plaintiffs failed to do so and stated they would not retain another expert.
Defendant moved for summary judgment on the ground that expert testimony is required to prove standard of care, breach, and proximate cause in medical-malpractice claims; the hearing justice granted summary judgment for defendant.
Plaintiffs appealed pro se, asserting they should have been allowed to proceed without an expert (common knowledge), that they were denied the chance to argue facts, and that the hearing justice was biased; they did not contest the exclusion of Nurse Burke on appeal and did not provide trial transcripts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether exclusion of Nurse Burke as expert was improper	Bartletts argued exclusion prevented them from presenting their case	Coppe argued Burke lacked qualifications to opine on a physician’s standard of care	Waived on appeal; plaintiffs conceded they do not challenge the exclusion
Whether expert testimony was required to prove malpractice here	Bartletts argued the case was within common knowledge and no expert was necessary	Coppe argued malpractice requires expert proof of standard of care, breach, and causation	Expert required because claims not obvious to layperson; without expert plaintiffs could not prove essential elements; summary judgment affirmed
Whether summary judgment was improper because facts were disputed	Bartletts argued they were not permitted to argue factual evidence and merits	Coppe argued no material factual dispute remained because plaintiffs had no expert to establish elements of malpractice	No material dispute on essential elements; summary judgment appropriate
Whether hearing justice was biased	Bartletts alleged judicial bias and that recusal was warranted	Coppe argued no basis shown; plaintiffs did not move to recuse and failed to preserve record/transcripts	Waived for failure to seek recusal and to provide transcripts; no evidence of bias found

Rodrigues v. DePasquale Building and Realty Co., 926 A.2d 616 (R.I. 2007) (standard for de novo review of summary judgment)
Walsh v. Lend Lease (US) Construction, 155 A.3d 1201 (R.I. 2017) (summary judgment standard)
Mandros v. Prescod, 948 A.2d 304 (R.I. 2008) (plaintiff must prove standard of care and deviation in medical malpractice)
Malinou v. Miriam Hospital, 24 A.3d 497 (R.I. 2011) (expert testimony required unless negligence is obvious to a layperson)
Laplante v. Rhode Island Hospital, 110 A.3d 261 (R.I. 2015) (requirement of expert testimony where care deviation not obvious)
Riley v. Stone, 900 A.2d 1087 (R.I. 2006) (standard on proving medical malpractice)
McGarry v. Pielech, 108 A.3d 998 (R.I. 2015) (issues not raised on appeal are waived)