David N. Riley v. William Stone, M.D., et al.

Summary

The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed a judgment for the defendants in a medical malpractice action involving an alleged failure to follow up on an MRI finding that preceded the plaintiff’s nasopharyngeal cancer diagnosis. The court held that the jury instructions properly stated the applicable physician standard of care and upheld the exclusion of portions of expert depositions. It also declined to review certain evidentiary challenges because the appellate record was incomplete, concluding alternatively that any evidentiary error was harmless.

Holdings

1. The jury instruction correctly measured Dr. Stone's duty by the degree of skill and care commonly possessed by physicians engaged in the same type of practice. A neurologist does not assume the standard of care of an otolaryngologist merely by evaluating an incidental finding when the evidence does not show that he undertook care as an otolaryngologist.
2. Expert medical testimony is admissible only when the opinion is expressed with the requisite degree of medical certainty, meaning some degree of positiveness or probability rather than mere possibility. The absence of magic words is not dispositive, but the substance of the testimony must satisfy that standard.
3. An appellant must provide sufficient portions of the record to permit meaningful appellate review; when the record does not include the materials or rulings necessary to evaluate a challenged evidentiary decision, the Supreme Court will decline review and uphold the ruling.
4. Any error in excluding portions of the challenged evidence was harmless because Dr. Rudders was permitted to testify extensively about the standard of care, causation, and damages, and the jury rejected his testimony.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the jury was improperly instructed that Dr. Stone's duty was measured by the skill and care commonly possessed by physicians engaged in the same type of practice, rather than by the standard applicable to otolaryngologists.
2. Whether the trial justice abused her discretion by excluding portions of Dr. Kim's and Dr. Duff's videotaped depositions because their opinions were not stated with the requisite degree of medical certainty.
3. Whether the trial justice improperly redacted portions of Dr. Duff's and Dr. Janecka's medical records and prevented Dr. Rudders from relying on them.
4. Whether any error in excluding portions of the evidence was prejudicial.

Disposition

affirmed