Rudy Robles v. Patricia Yugueros
343 Ga. App. 377
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Robles sued Dr. Patricia Yugueros and her practice after his wife, Iselda Moreno, developed post‑operative abdominal pain and died days after surgery; he alleged post‑operative malpractice (failure to recognize perforation/free air) and sought vicarious liability against the practice.
- At initial emergency visit to Gwinnett Medical Center (GMC) an ER physician (Dr. Violette) ordered a KUB x‑ray and discharged Moreno; a radiologist (Dr. York) later noted possible free air and recommended a CT but did not directly communicate that recommendation.
- Dr. Yugueros treated Moreno at Northside Hospital, did not order a CT or obtain the GMC radiology report; Moreno’s condition worsened and she died June 28, 2009.
- At trial defendants designated GMC, Dr. Violette, and Dr. York as nonparties at fault; jury returned a defense verdict. This Court’s earlier reversal (based on excluded 30(b)(6) deposition testimony) was reversed by the Georgia Supreme Court, which clarified admissibility rules and remanded; this Court then affirmed.
- Central evidentiary disputes on remand: (1) whether deposition testimony of the practice’s 30(b)(6) designee (Dr. Alexander) could be admitted when it contained medical‑opinion material subject to OCGA § 24‑7‑702; (2) whether defense expert Dr. Krebs (a radiologist) was qualified to opine about an ER physician’s care and hospital communication policies; (3) several trial rulings on jury instructions and closing argument about apportionment and nonparty fault.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of 30(b)(6) deposition that contains medical‑opinion testimony | Robles: deposition of practice designee (Dr. Alexander) is an admission under OCGA § 9‑11‑32(a)(2) and thus admissible without satisfying expert‑testimony gatekeeping | Defendants: where deposition includes expert opinion, admissibility must meet OCGA § 24‑7‑702 standards (sufficient facts/data, reliability) | Held: Deposition admissions must still satisfy rules of evidence; proponent bears burden under § 24‑7‑702 and Robles failed to show admissibility, so exclusion was not reversible error (affirmed). |
| Qualification of defense expert (Dr. Krebs, radiologist) to opine about an ER physician’s interpretation of KUB | Robles: Krebs, never an ER physician, lacks § 24‑7‑702(c) qualifications to opine on ER standard of care | Defendants: Krebs routinely read ER‑ordered films, worked with ER physicians, and has relevant experience reading the exact studies at issue | Held: Trial court did not abuse discretion; radiologist’s longstanding experience reading KUBs in ER contexts rendered him qualified to opine on the interpretation and applicable standard. |
| Qualification and notice for Dr. Krebs’s testimony on GMC policies/procedures and communication practices | Robles: Krebs lacks experience developing hospital reporting policies and defense failed to disclose this opinion in discovery | Defendants: York’s deposition and pretrial order put policies/procedures at issue; Krebs has relevant experience and issue was in the record | Held: No abuse of discretion: evidence and pretrial materials provided notice; Krebs’s background sufficed to testify and the testimony was not precluded. |
| Jury instruction and closing argument rulings (striking legal‑conclusion testimony; curtailing argument re: nonparty payment responsibility) | Robles: court improperly struck part of Krebs’s testimony that referenced (borderline) gross negligence and improperly curtailed closing argument about apportionment effects | Defendants: struck testimony was a legal conclusion; statements about nonparties’ payment obligations were unnecessary and misleading for jury fact‑finding | Held: No reversible error — court properly instructed jury to disregard legal‑conclusion testimony and appropriately curtailed argument about nonparties’ payment obligations; any error was not prejudicial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Yugueros v. Robles, 300 Ga. 58 (Ga. 2016) (OCGA § 9‑11‑32(a)(2) depositions that include expert opinion must comply with OCGA § 24‑7‑702)
- Robles v. Yugueros, 335 Ga. App. 324 (Ga. Ct. App. 2015) (earlier Court of Appeals decision reversed by the Supreme Court)
- HNTB Ga. v. Hamilton‑King, 287 Ga. 641 (Ga. 2010) (proponent bears burden to show expert opinion admissible under § 24‑7‑702)
- Dubois v. Brantley, 297 Ga. 575 (Ga. 2015) (Rule 702 requires expert to have appropriate level of knowledge about the procedure/condition at issue)
- Nathans v. Diamond, 282 Ga. 804 (Ga. 2007) (expert qualification under statutory language interpreted to require relevant practice experience)
- Johnson v. Omondi, 294 Ga. 74 (Ga. 2013) (OCGA § 51‑1‑29.5 does not alter standard of care but imposes heightened proof requirement for gross negligence)