Wendell Strout Jr. v. Central Maine Medical Center
94 A.3d 786
Me.2014Background
- April 2009 Strout sought emergency treatment at CMMC for abdominal pain; CAT scan showed large liver lesion; surgeon assessed possible hepatic, biliary, or pancreatic cancer.
- Dr. Reight suggested potential hepatic/pancreatic cancer and discussed inoperability and poor prognosis before final pathology.
- Final pathology showed B-cell non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma with high five-year survival; Strout filed a complaint in Oct 2009.
- Strout filed a notice of claim Feb 2011; CMMC replaced Dr. Reight as defendant in March 2012.
- Covey, CMMC president, signed a December 28, 2009 letter addressing the complaint, which described Dr. Reight’s prior communications and actions.
- Jury returned $200,000 verdict for Strout; CMMC moved in limine to exclude Covey’s letter in part; trial admitted a redacted version.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of fault admission under apology statute | Strout’s fault admission within the letter is admissible under statute | Letter is inadmissible as an apology/expressed benevolence under § 2907(2) | Statements of fault admissible; statute plain in allowing fault admissions. |
| Whether part of the letter constitutes an offer to compromise | No dispute existed at time of admission; not a compromise | Letter included settlement-related relief | Not an offer to compromise; admissible under Rule 408. |
| Potential unfair prejudice from limited disclosure of the letter | Single sentence viewed out of context could mislead jury | Trial court discretion controlled admissibility | appellate record insufficient to determine prejudice; no reversible error established; judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. Cost Mgmt., Inc., 2014 ME 41 (Me. 2014) (statutory interpretation of ambiguity and plain meaning in apportioning rule)
- Hickson v. Vescom Corp., 87 A.3d 704 (Me. 2014) (standard for reviewing jury verdicts in light of favorable view of record)
- Greenstreet v. Brown, 623 A.2d 1270 (Me. 1993) (Rule 408 applicability; compromise negotiations require a dispute)
- Clark v. Heald, 2009 ME 111 (Me. 2009) (appellate review of discretionary evidentiary rulings; transcript considerations)
- Springer v. Springer, 2009 ME 118 (Me. 2009) (practice on evidentiary challenges and record on appeal)
- Greaton v. Greaton, 2012 ME 17 (Me. 2012) (adequacy of record for review in trial proceedings)
- Lipham, 2006 ME 137 (Me. 2006) (Rule 403/overall prejudice and discretion)