Case Title: Everett v. Town of Bristol

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1996-01-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
Everett v. Town of Bristol  (93-620); 164 Vt 638; 674 A.2d 1275

[Filed 30-Jan-1996]


                               ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 93-620

                             JANUARY TERM, 1995



Constance Everett and                }     APPEALED FROM:
Robert Everett                       }
                                     }
     v.                              }     Chittenden Superior Court
                                     }
Town of Bristol                      }
                                     }     DOCKET NO. S0793-89C


  In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       Plaintiff Constance Everett (FN1) appeals from a jury verdict in favor of
  defendant Town of Bristol, claiming the trial court erred by admitting
  highly inflammatory and unfairly prejudicial evidence as the basis for
  defendant's psychiatric expert's opinion, and allowing cross-examination
  of plaintiff regarding irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial personal history
  to attack plaintiff's character and credibility.(FN2)  We agree and reverse.

       In September 1986, plaintiff fell when she was descending the front
  steps of the Bristol Town Hall.  She filed a complaint in Chittenden
  Superior Court in June 1989, alleging that the town negligently maintained
  the steps, which caused her to fall, resulting in injury to her ankle.
  Defendant maintained that plaintiff's fall was not caused by any defect in
  the steps, and that plaintiff's injuries were not caused by the fall on the
  town hall steps.  A jury returned a verdict for defendant, and plaintiff
  appeals.

       Plaintiff raises several challenges to the testimony of defendant's
  psychiatric expert, Dr. Richard Bernstein.  Dr. Bernstein testified that,
  in his opinion, plaintiff suffers from somatoform pain disorder, which
  preexisted her fall on the town hall steps, and is the cause of her present
  ankle pain.  As a basis for his opinion, Dr. Bernstein gave a history of
  plaintiff's life.  He told the jury that plaintiff had a terrible
  relationship with her father, who was an alcoholic; that she was raped when
  she was a teenager; that there were allegations of a lesbian relationship
  with a commanding officer while she was in the army; that she was
  discharged from the Army because she was unsuitable; that she married a man
  in Italy who broke her jaw, causing a miscarriage; that the man followed
  her back to the United States and killed her mother; that her second
  husband was a "swinger and a bisexual," who liberally prescribed drugs for
  her to which she became addicted; that her second husband ran off with her
  best friend; and that she is now married for the third time.

  

       Dr. Bernstein also relied on plaintiff's psychiatric history, and gave
  a detailed description of her psychiatric records, including the records of
  two hospitalizations.  He also detailed plaintiff's medical history. 
  Finally, Dr. Bernstein explained how the detailed history that he provided
  substantiated his diagnosis.

       Plaintiff first argues that the trial court erred in allowing the
  psychiatric expert to testify because he could not testify to a reasonable
  degree of medical certainty that plaintiff's injury was not caused by the
  fall on the town steps.  She maintains that the expert's testimony could
  not, therefore, assist the trier of fact in understanding the evidence or
  determining a fact in issue. See V.R.E. 702.  "[E]xpert testimony must meet
  a standard of `reasonable probability' or a `reasonable degree of medical
  certainty.'"  Jackson v. True Temper Corp., 151 Vt. 592, 596, 563 A.2d 621,
  623 (1989) (quoting Campbell v. Heinrich Savelberg, Inc. 139 Vt. 31, 34,