Pitts v. Wingate at Brighton, Inc.
82 Mass. App. Ct. 285
| Mass. App. Ct. | 2012Background
- Plaintiff, age 53, with osteoporosis and other serious conditions, was a rehabilitation patient at Wingate at Brighton who fell during a transfer from toilet to wheelchair.
- The care plan required two aides for transfers; one aide attempted the transfer alone.
- Plaintiff sustained tibia/fibula fractures; symptoms appeared after the transfer and during or after return to bed.
- Nursing home anticipated Dr. Richmond, an orthopedic surgeon, to testify the fracture was pathologic and not caused by a fall; he would testify about low-velocity trauma.
- Trial judge directed verdict for nursing home after opening statement based on lack of expert causation proof; the court remanded for further proceedings on this issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether causation can be shown without expert testimony | Plaintiff argues causation is within common knowledge; fall could cause fractures. | Defendant contends causation requires medical expert. | Causation may be established without expert where within common knowledge. |
| Whether the judge erred in directing verdict based on anticipated expert | Judge relied on anticipated Dr. Richmond testimony to dismiss; this was improper. | Expert testimony was necessary to resolve causation; anticipated testimony supported dismissal. | Reversed; directing verdict based on anticipated expert trial testimony was improper. |
| Whether plaintiff could prove causation without exclusive reliance on Dr. Richmond | Plaintiff needed only evidence from which reasonable inferences favor plaintiff;免expert not required. | Nursing home could present competing causation theory with expert; plaintiff must counter with expert. | Jury could resolve causation with lay and expert evidence; expert was not mandatory. |
| Whether remand is appropriate for further proceedings | Record insufficient to resolve timing and causation questions. | Directed verdict was appropriate; but remand unnecessary if no expert is available. | Remand for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hubbard v. Melrose-Wakefield Hosp. Assn., 40 Mass. App. Ct. 172 (1996) (directed verdict opened with caution; assess opening statements for favorable inferences)
- Upham v. Chateau de Ville Dinner Theatre, Inc., 380 Mass. 350 (1980) (opening verdicts require caution; statements viewed in plaintiff's favor)
- Global Investors Agent Corp. v. National Fire Ins. Co. of Hartford, 76 Mass. App. Ct. 812 (2010) (any reasonable inference favorable to plaintiff supports denial of directed verdict)
- A.C. Vaccaro, Inc. v. Vaccaro, 80 Mass. App. Ct. 635 (2011) (review of directed verdict on appeal uses evidence in record, not counsel’s anticipatory statements)
- Douglas v. Whittaker, 324 Mass. 398 (1949) (power to dispose on opening verdict should be exercised cautiously; rely on actual evidence)