Robin Bair v. Robert Callahan
664 F.3d 1225
8th Cir.2012Background
- Callahan performed a spinal fusion on Robin Bair on September 26, 2007; post-operative pain persisted and Bair later had a second surgery to replace hardware, with no fusion achieved.
- Bair and Zephier (loss of consortium) sued Callahan for negligence; the jury found in Callahan's favor.
- Appellants moved for a new trial arguing the district court improperly excluded evidence of Callahan’s treatment of other patients and that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence.
- Callahan moved in limine to exclude evidence of other patients; the court deferred ruling and later limited cross-examination to one question about misplaced pedicle screws in other patients.
- The court ruled under Rule 404(b) and Rule 403 that evidence of other patients’ surgeries was not admissible to prove knowledge or propensity, but allowed one credibility-focused cross-exam question; the district court denied the new-trial motion.
- Appellants appeal the denial of the new-trial motion and the exclusion of other-patients evidence; the appellate court affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred under Rule 404(b) in excluding other-patients evidence | Bair argues other-patients evidence shows lack of competence and is admissible. | Callahan argues such evidence is improper propensity evidence and prejudicial. | No abuse; evidence excluded. |
| Whether the district court properly balanced Rule 403 prejudice against probative value | Evidence relevance to other-patients should not be outweighed by prejudice. | Exclusion prevents unfair prejudice and mini-trials. | Exclusion upheld; Rule 403 balancing proper. |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying a new trial | Verdict contrary to weight of the evidence; new trial warranted. | Verdict supported by conflicting expert testimony; no miscarriage of justice. | No abuse; verdict affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cummings v. Malone, 995 F.2d 817 (8th Cir. 1993) (broad discretion in evidentiary rulings; abuse standard)
- Zoltek Corp. v. Structural Polymer Grp., 592 F.3d 893 (8th Cir. 2010) (affirm on any ground supported by record)
- Kostel v. Schwartz, 756 N.W.2d 363 (S.D. 2008) (Rule 404(b) knowledge interpretation; non-binding on federal court)
- Weitz Co. v. MH Washington, 631 F.3d 510 (8th Cir. 2011) (abuse of discretion standard for weight-of-evidence review)
- Foster v. Time Warner Entm’t Co., 250 F.3d 1189 (2d Cir. 2001) (miscarriage of justice standard for weight of the evidence)