Poff v. Elkins
2014 Ark. App. 663
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Sue Poff sued Dr. Elkins and his professional entity for negligent laser skin resurfacing causing third-degree burns; initial suit was voluntarily dismissed; she refiled in February 2012; a March 2013 jury verdict favored the appellees; she appealed asserting multiple trial-court errors; trial court limited discovery to developments since the 2011 non-suit; issues included licensure evidence, other procedures, pre-admission exhibits, opening statements, and punitive-damages ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Discovery restrictions improper | Poff contends the court limited meaningful discovery | Elkins argues limits were appropriate given prior discovery | No reversible abuse; court properly limited discovery |
| Evidence of licensure admissibility | Licensure evidence relevant to informed consent and defendant's licensing status | Licensure evidence peripheral and potentially prejudicial | No abuse of discretion in excluding licensure evidence |
| Evidence of Poff’s other procedures | Evidence relevant to informed consent should be admitted | Evidence was properly restricted as not central | Ruling to admit/deny this evidence upheld; no reversible error |
| Pre-admission exhibits and opening statements | Should pre-admit previously admitted exhibits and allow exhibits in opening | Pre-admission at trial discretion; limit to avoid prejudice | No manifest abuse; opening-statement aids properly restricted; no prejudice shown |
| Punitive damages directed verdict | Directed verdict on punitive damages was error | Bifurcation required liability first; verdict moot if no liability | Moot due to bifurcated trial and lack of liability verdict |
Key Cases Cited
- Grand Valley Ridge, LLC v. Metropolitan Nat’l Bank, 388 S.W.3d 24 (2012 Ark. 121) (limits on discovery and discretion supported by appellate standard)
- Rush v. Wallace, 742 S.W.2d 952 (1988 Ark. App.) (trial-court protections against harassment in discovery)
- Jackson v. Buchman, 996 S.W.2d 30 (1999) (evidentiary rulings and prejudice considerations)
- Arthur v. Zearley, 992 S.W.2d 67 (1999) (permissible scope of evidentiary rulings)
- ConAgra v. Strother, 5 S.W.3d 69 (1999) (nature of interlocutory rulings and reconsideration of motions)
- Chapman v. Ford Motor Co., 245 S.W.3d 123 (2006) (pre-admission exhibits and trial discretion)
- Arkansas State Highway Comm’n v. Basin Dev. Corp., 571 S.W.2d 578 (1978) (discretion in evidentiary rulings)
- Pursley v. Price, 670 S.W.2d 448 (1984) (timely reconsideration of motions in limine)
- Bayer CropScience LP v. Schafer, 385 S.W.3d 822 (2011) (punitive-damages prerequisites and causation)
- Aronson v. Harriman, 901 S.W.2d 832 (1995) (informed consent and material facts affecting decision to undergo procedures)
- Miller v. Hometown Propane Gas, Inc., 167 S.W.3d 172 (2004) (use of demonstrative aids and trial discretion)