St. John v. Peterson

Summary

The Supreme Court of South Dakota affirmed a judgment for Dr. Linda Peterson in a medical malpractice action involving the repair of a vesicovaginal fistula. The court held that evidence concerning Dr. Peterson's treatment of other patients and expert testimony regarding informed consent was properly excluded as irrelevant, unreliable, or outside the issues remaining for trial.

Holdings

1. The circuit court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence concerning Dr. Peterson's treatment of Crystal, Ruth, and Cheryl because the evidence did not make a consequential fact concerning Dr. Peterson's competence to repair St. John's fistula more or less probable.
2. The circuit court did not err in excluding Dr. Wharton's proposed testimony concerning Dr. Peterson's treatment of other patients because the testimony was neither relevant nor reliable.
3. The circuit court did not abuse its discretion in excluding Dr. Wharton's proposed testimony because it addressed informed consent rather than whether a reasonably careful and skillful physician would have referred St. John to a specialist.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the circuit court abused its discretion by excluding evidence concerning Dr. Peterson's treatment of other patients with vesicovaginal fistulas.
2. Whether the circuit court abused its discretion by excluding Dr. Wharton's testimony that Dr. Peterson breached the standard of care by failing to inform St. John that repairing vesicovaginal fistulas was not her specialty.

Disposition

affirmed