Verdicts

The court here noted that while is clearly established that the constitutional rights of an incarcerated person may be violated if his serious medical needs are met with deliberate indifference on the part of penal authorities, “deliberate indifference” is not an easy thing to show. Medical decisions not to seek further tests do not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. Rather, at most it is medical malpractice, and as such the proper forum for this action was state court.

Verdict Thrown Out over Heresay Evidence

The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has held that a jury verdict in a medical malpractice case must be vacated as prejudicial impermissible heresay evidence had been admitted by the district court. Field v. Trigg County Hospital, Nos. 02-6440/6517, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 21437 (6th Cir., 10/15/04).

Plaintiffs-appellants Tina and Norman Field appealed the district court's denial of their motion for a new trial after a jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant-appellee, Dr. William B. Anderson, following a trial for medical malpractice.

Tina Field lost a part of her leg after receiving treatment from two medical facilities following a snake bite. The case was brought in federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiffs contended that they were entitled to a new trial because the district court improperly admitted prejudicial hearsay evidence when it permitted Dr. Anderson to testify about the statements made by two unnamed, undisclosed physicians with whom he allegedly consulted concerning Field's medical care.

Dr. Anderson testified that while he was treating Field for snake bite, he phoned an attending emergency room physician at the Vanderbilt University Medical Center, who then referred him to a Vanderbilt toxicologist. The Vanderbilt physicians were never deposed, they never testified at trial, and their names, identities and credentials were never disclosed. Nevertheless, Dr. Anderson was permitted, over objections, to testify at trial that he telephoned these individuals and gave them a patient history and condition assessment of Tina Field and that the Vanderbilt emergency room physician and toxicologist told him that he was “doing everything appropriately,” that “they would be doing the same thing” and that the main treatment was to elevate and monitor the leg. No evidence was presented on the issue of whether he'd told these consulting physicians that Field's foot had no pulse at the time he made the phone call.

The Circuit Court found that because the statements of the two unknown physicians were classic hearsay and did not fall into any of the hearsay exceptions contained in the Federal Rules of Evidence, and because the statements' admission was highly prejudicial and more than mere harmless error, the jury's verdict must be vacated and the case remanded to the district court for a new trial.

Federal Court Was the Wrong Forum for Prisoner's Suit

The Magistrate granted defendant's motion for summary judgment, as the plaintiff prisoner's claim of substandard medical care should have been brought in state court as a medical malpractice claim rather than in federal court as a complaint of violation of constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Ayro v. Terrebonne Parish Consolidated Govm't, Civ. Act. No. 03-3628 Sect. “N” (3), 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19226 (E.D.L. 9/24/04).

The Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed a complaint against the Terrebonne Parish Consolidated Government and others, claiming that he has been denied adequate medical care in violation of his constitutional rights. When he complained of stomach problems plaintiff was seen by prison doctors and treated several times there. After a few months of unsuccessful treatment, he was seen at a hospital where he was diagnosed with colon cancer, operated on and given chemotherapy.

The court here noted that while is clearly established that the constitutional rights of an incarcerated person may be violated if his serious medical needs are met with deliberate indifference on the part of penal authorities, “deliberate indifference” is not an easy thing to show. Medical decisions not to seek further tests do not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. Rather, at most it is medical malpractice, and as such the proper forum for this action was state court.

Verdict Thrown Out over Heresay Evidence

The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has held that a jury verdict in a medical malpractice case must be vacated as prejudicial impermissible heresay evidence had been admitted by the district court. Field v. Trigg County Hospital, Nos. 02-6440/6517, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 21437 (6th Cir., 10/15/04).

Plaintiffs-appellants Tina and Norman Field appealed the district court's denial of their motion for a new trial after a jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant-appellee, Dr. William B. Anderson, following a trial for medical malpractice.

Tina Field lost a part of her leg after receiving treatment from two medical facilities following a snake bite. The case was brought in federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiffs contended that they were entitled to a new trial because the district court improperly admitted prejudicial hearsay evidence when it permitted Dr. Anderson to testify about the statements made by two unnamed, undisclosed physicians with whom he allegedly consulted concerning Field's medical care.

Dr. Anderson testified that while he was treating Field for snake bite, he phoned an attending emergency room physician at the Vanderbilt University Medical Center, who then referred him to a Vanderbilt toxicologist. The Vanderbilt physicians were never deposed, they never testified at trial, and their names, identities and credentials were never disclosed. Nevertheless, Dr. Anderson was permitted, over objections, to testify at trial that he telephoned these individuals and gave them a patient history and condition assessment of Tina Field and that the Vanderbilt emergency room physician and toxicologist told him that he was “doing everything appropriately,” that “they would be doing the same thing” and that the main treatment was to elevate and monitor the leg. No evidence was presented on the issue of whether he'd told these consulting physicians that Field's foot had no pulse at the time he made the phone call.

The Circuit Court found that because the statements of the two unknown physicians were classic hearsay and did not fall into any of the hearsay exceptions contained in the Federal Rules of Evidence, and because the statements' admission was highly prejudicial and more than mere harmless error, the jury's verdict must be vacated and the case remanded to the district court for a new trial.