Summary
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court reviewed an order granting a new trial and imposing sanctions in a medical malpractice action involving the allegedly misleading testimony of a defense expert about the NINDS stroke-treatment study. The court held that the testimony did not constitute fraud on the court, that the evidence offered in support of a new trial was not newly discovered, and that the plaintiff had not shown grounds warranting a new trial. It vacated the orders, reinstated the jury verdict for the defendant, and entered a final judgment of dismissal.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Superior Court abused its discretion by granting a new trial based on allegedly false or misleading testimony concerning cancer patients in the NINDS study.
- Whether the evidence concerning the NINDS study participants was newly discovered evidence unavailable at trial despite the plaintiff's diligence.
- Whether the record supported a finding of fraud on the court by the defense expert or defense counsel.
- Whether sanctions against the defendant and the nonparty expert were proper.
Holdings
- The record did not support a finding that the defense expert or defense counsel committed fraud on the court.
- The trial judge abused her discretion in granting a new trial based on Hochberg's testimony.
- The data showing that fifty-nine NINDS participants had some history of malignancy was not newly discovered evidence.
- The sanctions against Caragher and Hochberg were improper and had to be vacated.
Key quotations
“Courts have found fraud upon the court only where there has been the most egregious conduct involving a corruption of the judicial process itself.” (at 210)
“Evidence is considered “newly discovered” in this context only if it was “unknown and unavailable at the time of trial despite the diligence of the moving party.”” (at 213)
“Given the “public interest in the finality of judgments,” a motion for a new trial should not be granted when the issues raised therein could have been addressed during the trial.” (at 215)
Factual background
Sherry Wojcicki suffered an ischemic stroke shortly after undergoing chemotherapy for breast cancer. Her treating emergency physician, Joan Caragher, declined to administer tissue plasminogen activator because of concerns about the decedent's recent cancer diagnosis, chemotherapy, and the possibility of metastatic disease. At trial, defense expert Fred Hochberg testified that no cancer patients had participated in the NINDS stroke study, although posttrial investigation showed that fifty-nine participants had reported some history of malignancy; the record did not establish whether any had active cancer during the study.
Procedural history
The jury found that Dr. Joan Caragher was not negligent in treating Sherry Wojcicki's ischemic stroke. The trial judge later granted Edmund Wojcicki's motion for a new trial based on allegedly false and misleading testimony by defense expert Fred Hochberg and imposed monetary sanctions against Hochberg and Caragher. The Supreme Judicial Court held that the judge abused her discretion, vacated the posttrial orders, reinstated the jury verdict, and directed entry of a final judgment of dismissal.
Remand instructions
The orders granting a new trial and imposing sanctions were vacated, the jury verdict was reinstated, and a final judgment of dismissal was to be entered.