Sevan (Bjorklund) Cappuccilli v. David A. Carcieri, M.D., d/b/a Medical Office of David A. Carcieri, M.D.
15-46
| R.I. | Dec 15, 2017Background
- On March 15, 2006 Sevan Cappuccilli underwent an emergency C-section at Women & Infants Hospital after fetal bradycardia prompted Dr. Hawwa to summon Dr. David Carcieri to perform the surgery.
- The baby was delivered successfully but surgery revealed heavy bleeding from the retroperitoneum; surgeons identified and ultimately controlled hemorrhage from the ovarian vein after difficulty ligating friable tissue. Plaintiff lost a massive volume of blood and required additional surgeries and intensive care; she alleges ongoing physical and psychological injury.
- Plaintiff sued for medical malpractice, claiming Dr. Carcieri cut or tore her ovarian vein during the C-section; defendants maintained the ovarian vein spontaneously ruptured prior to surgery and was abnormal/friable.
- The three-and-a-half-week jury trial featured competing expert testimony on timing and mechanism of the vein injury; the jury returned a defense verdict.
- Plaintiff moved for a new trial under Rule 59 arguing the trial justice overlooked material evidence and misappraised credibility; the trial justice denied the motion, finding the experts’ opinions evenly balanced and reasonable minds could differ.
- Plaintiff also challenged exclusion of (1) a photograph and medical record showing her newborn’s scalp wound and (2) a record indicating the hospital’s risk-management paid for her Zoloft; the trial justice excluded these items largely under Rules 403 and statutory/Rule 411-type concerns.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial justice overlooked/conceived evidence and failed to assess credibility when denying new trial | The trial justice failed to reconcile contemporaneous medical records describing a "lacerated" ovarian vein with defendants’ later testimony that the vein ruptured spontaneously; he should have found defendants not credible and ordered a new trial | Trial justice independently reviewed competing expert testimony and medical records, found the experts equally credible and the evidence equivocal, so denial of new trial was proper | Affirmed: trial justice did not overlook or misconceive material evidence; denial stands because evidence was evenly balanced and reasonable minds could differ |
| Exclusion of photograph and medical record of newborn's scalp wound | The photograph/record would help define what the hospital meant by "laceration" and bear on Dr. Carcieri’s skill/credibility | Photo/record are marginally probative, highly prejudicial and irrelevant to mother’s negligence claim; no expert links baby’s injury to mother’s injury | Affirmed: trial justice did not abuse discretion under Rule 403 in excluding photo; record ruling not preserved definitively so appellate review declined |
| Exclusion of record indicating risk-management paid for plaintiff's Zoloft | The record was admissible to show bias, that defendants (or hospital) recognized plaintiff’s psychological injury, and to rebut defense | The record is tantamount to an admission or liability/insurance evidence and is prejudicial; §9-19-35 and Rule 403 bar it | Affirmed: excluded under §9-19-35 and Rule 403 (risk-management evidence too likely to be treated as admission/insurance and unduly prejudicial) |
Key Cases Cited
- Bates-Bridgmon v. Heong’s Market, Inc., 152 A.3d 1137 (R.I. 2017) (standard of appellate review varies by issue; review of new-trial denial is deferential)
- Martin v. Lawrence, 79 A.3d 1275 (R.I. 2013) (trial justice should not disturb jury verdict if evidence is evenly balanced or reasonable minds could differ)
- Accetta v. Provencal, 962 A.2d 56 (R.I. 2009) (application of Rule 403 and standards for upholding trial-justice rulings)
- Hough v. McKiernan, 101 A.3d 853 (R.I. 2014) (trial justice need not provide exhaustive review of evidence—must cite facts sufficient to show basis for ruling)
- Free & Clear Co. v. Narragansett Bay Commission, 131 A.3d 1102 (R.I. 2016) (trial-justice review of new-trial motion requires reference to evidence that motivated the decision)
- Hefner v. Distel, 813 A.2d 66 (R.I. 2003) (trial justice must analyze evidence and pass upon credibility when deciding new-trial motions)