Stone v. Alexander, 6 A.3d 847

Irma Stone underwent a double valve replacement by Dr. Alexander at GWUH on Oct 20, 2003 and died eight days later.
Jacqueline and Ronald Stone (plaintiffs) sued Dr. Alexander and MFA for malpractice alleging negligent valve placement caused death.
Dr. Salter assisted and discussed concerns about the valve; a cafeteria meeting was held with Dr. Gharagozloo and others; Dr. Alexander was not present.
The trial court ruled the cafeteria discussion potentially privileged under peer review; other conversations were admitted via de bene esse and related testimony.
Appellants argued exclusion of cafeteria discussions prejudiced them; the court affirmed the verdict, holding any error harmless and that other testimony sufficed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Cafeteria meeting privilege scope	Cafeteria discussions were informal and not within peer review; exclusion harmed evidence of admissions.	Cafeteria meeting falls within peer review privilege under the statute; exclusion was proper or harmless if not.	Harmless error; no prejudice; other testimony covered substantially the same ground.
Admission of Haudenschild's de bene esse testimony	De bene esse deposition should be excluded as hearsay and improper disclosure.	Testimony properly admitted; not properly objected or disclosed as required.	Not properly before court to challenge; admissibility affirmed.
Rule 26(b)(4) applicability to Haudenschild	Haudenschild as expert should have disclosed under Rule 26(b)(4).	Haudenschild was a quality assurance consultant, not an expert; Rule 26(b)(4) does not apply.	Rule 26(b)(4) does not apply; late disclosure not error.

Sullivan v. Yellow Cab Co., 212 A.2d 616 (D.C.1965) (harmless-error/prejudice standard for evidentiary rulings)
Johnson v. United States, 398 A.2d 354 (D.C.1979) (two-step abuse-of-discretion standard in appellate review)
Mitchell v. District of Columbia, 533 A.2d 629 (D.C.1987) (Rule 26(b)(4) applicability framework and expert disclosure)