Case Title: Keus v. Brooks Drug, Inc.

Citation: 163 Vt 1, 652 A.2d 475

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1994-08-05T00:00:00Z

Document:
KEUS_V_BROOKS_DRUGS_INC.93-198; 163 Vt 1; 652 A.2d 475

[Filed 05-Aug-1994]

[Motion for Reargument and to Revise Mandate Denied 2-Nov-1994]

 NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P. 40
 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports.
 Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Vermont Supreme
 Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of any errors in
 order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.


                                 No. 93-198


 Erica Keus                                   Supreme Court

                                              On Appeal from
      v.                                      Bennington Superior Court

 Brooks Drug, Inc., and Peter                 December Term, 1993
 Del Santo


 Ellen Holmes Maloney, J.

 Bradley D. Myerson, Manchester Center, for plaintiff-appellant

 Martha M. Smyrski of Ryan Smith & Carbine, Ltd., Rutland, for defendants-
    appellees



 PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.



      GIBSON, J.  Plaintiff Erica Keus appeals from a judgment for defendants
 after the jury found defendants guilty of negligence and breach of express
 warranty, but denied damages, for lack of proximate causation, for injuries
 suffered by plaintiff in a fall brought on by a drug she was given when
 pharmacist Peter Del Santo incorrectly filled a prescription.  We reverse.
      In November 1985, suffering from pain in her chest and a fever,
 plaintiff went to see Dr. Ronald Woodworth in Bennington.  The doctor diag-
 nosed an infection and prescribed Eryc, a form of the antibiotic
 Erythromycin.  Plaintiff took the prescription to Brooks Pharmacy, where it
 was filled by defendant Del Santo.  Del Santo, however, misread the hand-

 

 writing on the prescription and filled it not with Eryc but with Esgic, a
 pain killer and sedative containing a barbiturate.  Plaintiff did not notice
 the mistake.  She took two of the pills before going to bed and two more
 pills the next morning.  Because she felt queasy and "cloudy," plaintiff
 decided to take a shower.  She fainted soon after stepping into the shower,
 and came to with a "stinging sensation" in her lower back, which she
 believes was caused by striking the water faucet when she fell.  She
 returned to Dr. Woodworth's office and showed the medication to the
 receptionist.  After a call to the pharmacy, the receptionist informed
 plaintiff that she had been given the wrong medication.  She went again to
 the pharmacy, where Del Santo apologized for the mistake and gave her a
 bottle with the correct medication.
      For about three weeks, plaintiff considered the mishap a "minor scrape
 and bruise," but when pain in her lower back continued she went to see Dr.
 Richard Fabricius, an orthopedist, who prescribed physical therapy.  Plain-
 tiff revisited Dr. Fabricius twice, and thereafter saw a number of different
 doctors, including a chiropractor, seeking relief from her pain.  She was
 finally told in 1992 by Dr. Dudley Baker, an orthopedic surgeon, that her
 condition was probably permanent.  In preparation for trial, she was seen
 and evaluated by a doctor for the defense, Dr. Richard Kuhlmann, and, at the
 request of her own attorney, by Dr. Robert Van Uitert, a neurologist.
      At trial, defendants presented no medical witnesses, relying instead on
 cross-examination of plaintiff and her medical witnesses.  Drs. Van Uitert
 and Baker were of the opinion that plaintiff's lower back pain was due to
 the injury sustained when she fell in the shower.  In addition, Dr. Van
 Uitert testified that in his opinion the fall was caused by the side effects
 
 

 of the drug Esgic, and that the fall would have occurred whether or not
 plaintiff had been in the shower.  Dr. Baker testified that plaintiff's
 account was consistent with the injury he diagnosed.
      On direct examination, plaintiff's counsel asked Dr. Van Uitert if he
 had based part of his history of plaintiff's injury on the reports of Dr.
 Fabricius, plaintiff's first treating doctor after the fall, and Dr.
 Kuhlmann, the defense's examining doctor.  Dr. Van Uitert stated that he
 had.  The crux of this appeal concerns the admission, during the cross-
 examination of Dr. Van Uitert, of the entire reports of Drs. Fabricius and
 Kuhlmann.  Plaintiff's counsel objected, as follows:

           MR. MYERSON:  Well, Your Honor, these are inadmissible
           as pertaining to the findings and conclusions of each
           Doctor.  The factual summaries and the findings are
           already in evidence, but I believe Rule 803 bars the
           conclusions and opinions of a non-testifying doctor as
           being hearsay.  So we would object to those.

           MR. MORGAN:  These are medical records.  Dr. Fabricius's
           are of a treating physician; Dr. Kuhlmann's of an
           examining physician.  Both records are based -- are the
           basis for some of the opinions given by the Doctor in
           this case.  I think they are relevant.  I think they are
           an exception to the hearsay rule.  I don't think the
           plaintiff is entitled to extract what she pleases from
           these records.  I think they would more fully explain to
           the jury the history and symptoms that the plaintiff
           exhibited.

           MR. MYERSON:  Your Honor --

           THE COURT:  It is appropriate by way of cross-
           examination that these be admitted.
      Dr. Kuhlmann's report included the following statement:  "I'm of the
 opinion that this patient has not incurred any partial permanent functional
 impairment to the spine related to the incident of the 21st November 1985."
 Further, the report stated that "[t]he cause of this patient's complaint
 other than the temporary one of back strain remain[s] obscure."  Dr.

 

 Fabricius's report "advised against continued manipulations," referring to
 back manipulations performed by plaintiff's osteopath, Dr. Woodworth.
      The jury's verdict was in the form of answers to special
 interrogatories, finding that (1) defendant Del Santo was negligent, (2)
 plaintiff was not contributorily negligent, (3) Del Santo's negligence was
 not the proximate cause of plaintiff's injury, (4) there was a breach of an
 express warranty by Del Santo to fill the prescription as presented, and (5)
 the breach of the express warranty was not the proximate cause of plain-
 tiff's injury.  As a result of its findings that the negligence and the
 breach of express warranty were not the proximate cause of plaintiff's
 injury, the jury assigned no damages.
      Plaintiff moved for a new trial on the proximate cause and damages
 issues, claiming the trial court improperly admitted hearsay opinions and
 conclusions contained in the reports of the two nontestifying physicians.
 The court denied the motion.  On appeal, plaintiff contends that the
 opinions and conclusions in the Kuhlmann report were inadmissible because
 (1) they were not "basis" evidence within the meaning of V.R.E. 703, and (2)
 use of the Kuhlmann and Fabricius opinions and conclusions as substantive
 evidence deprived her of a fair trial.
      We review a ruling on a motion for a new trial for abuse of discretion,
 Hardy v. Berisha, 144 Vt. 130, 133,