Misty Blanchette Porter, M.D. v. Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Vermont denied Dartmouth Health’s Rule 59 motion for a new trial limited to damages. The court rejected challenges concerning the timeliness of the plaintiff’s damages expert disclosures, jury instructions on mitigation and lost earnings, exclusion of a handwritten damages calculation, and use of a severance offer in closing argument. The court concluded that no error resulted in a seriously erroneous verdict or miscarriage of justice.

Holdings

1. The alleged untimely supplemental disclosures did not warrant a new trial. Defendants waived their timeliness objection to the August 2024 report by failing to object on Rules 26 and 37 grounds when the evidence was offered, and, in any event, the supplemental disclosures were substantially justified or harmless under Rule 37.
2. The jury instructions adequately explained the calculation of lost-earnings damages, and any deficiency would not have prejudiced Defendants. The phrase lost income or lost earnings necessarily excludes earnings Plaintiff actually received from UVMMC.
3. The court properly excluded the handwritten note containing alternative damages calculations from evidence and as a demonstrative exhibit because it did not fairly or accurately represent the expert's testimony and posed a danger of confusing or misleading the jury.
4. Defendants were not entitled to a new trial based on an alleged restriction concerning the severance offer because the court issued no express ruling barring the proposed argument, and Defendants affirmatively represented that they would not use the offer to argue for a reduction in damages.

Questions Presented

1. Whether alleged untimely supplementation of Plaintiff's damages expert's reports warranted exclusion of the expert's testimony or a new trial under Rules 26, 37, and 59.
2. Whether the jury instructions adequately explained the treatment of Plaintiff's University of Vermont Medical Center earnings in calculating lost-earnings damages.
3. Whether the court erred by excluding a handwritten note containing alternative damages calculations as substantive evidence or as a demonstrative exhibit.
4. Whether the court improperly restricted Defendants' closing argument concerning a severance offer as a means of mitigating damages.

Disposition

denied