Case Title: Smith v. Parrott

Citation: 175 Vt. 375, 2003 VT 64, 833 A.2d 843

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2003-08-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
Smith v. Parrott (2002-322); 175 Vt. 375; 833 A.2d 843

2003 VT 64

[Filed 01-Aug-2003]

       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.

                                 2003 VT 64

                                No. 2002-322

                                                 Supreme Court
  Stephen L. Smith
                                                 On Appeal from
       v.	                                 Windsor Superior Court

  Thomas B. Parrott	                         March Term, 2003

  Alan W. Cook, J.

  Norman E. Watts, Woodstock, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

  Laura Q. Pelosi and John Davis Buckley of Theriault & Joslin, P.C.,
    Montpelier, for  Defendant-Appellee.

  PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Dooley and Skoglund, JJ., and Allen, C.J.
            (Ret.) and Gibson, J. (Ret.), Specially Assigned

       ¶  1.  ALLEN, C.J. (Ret.), Specially Assigned.    Stephen L. Smith,
  plaintiff in this medical malpractice action, appeals from a summary
  judgment of the Windsor Superior Court in favor of defendant Thomas
  Parrott, M.D.  Plaintiff contends the trial court erred in: (1) finding
  that plaintiff had failed to show a probability that Dr. Parrott's
  negligence was the cause of his paralysis; and (2) rejecting plaintiff's
  theory of recovery based on a showing that Dr. Parrott's negligence had
  reduced plaintiff's chances of recovery, even if it was not the probable
  cause of his injuries.  We affirm.
   
       ¶  2.  The undisputed material facts may be briefly summarized.  On
  July 31, 1995, plaintiff awoke to find that he had no motor control over
  the use of his left foot.  That afternoon he went to see Dr. Parrott, a
  family practitioner in White River Junction.  Dr. Parrott noted that
  plaintiff had had two prior back surgeries, and described plaintiff's
  condition as a "[d]ramatic foot drop on the left side." Foot-drop is a
  neurological condition in which the motor functions of the foot and
  lower-leg are diminished or terminated.  Dr. Parrott referred plaintiff to
  a neurosurgeon.
        
       ¶  3.  Eleven days later, plaintiff was examined by Dr. Joseph
  Phillips, a neurosurgeon at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center.  Dr.
  Phillips concluded that plaintiff's condition was complete or permanent,
  and that there was no possibility of any functional recovery.  Plaintiff
  underwent surgery in early September to alleviate pain.  His motor
  functions did not improve. 
   
       ¶  4.  Plaintiff filed a medical malpractice action against Dr.
  Parrott, alleging that his failure to advise plaintiff of the need for an
  immediate neurological examination, and his failure to arrange such an
  examination, had resulted in the deterioration of plaintiff's condition to
  the point of permanence by the time he saw Dr. Phillips. (FN1)  Following
  extensive discovery, Dr. Parrott moved for summary judgment, asserting that
  plaintiff had failed to adduce evidence that Parrott's conduct - even if
  below the standard of care - was the proximate cause of plaintiff's
  injuries.  The motion cited Dr. Phillips's deposition testimony that
  plaintiff's foot-drop was complete two to three weeks before his
  neurological examination on August 11, and therefore that the delay in
  surgery had no impact on plaintiff's chances of recovery.  Dr. Parrott also
  relied on the deposition testimony of plaintiff's expert witness, Dr.
  Donald Myers, who had initially opined that an earlier consultation with a
  neurosurgeon could have yielded a "50-50 chance" of  "some recovery," but
  later amended his opinion to state that, in light of plaintiff's history of
  back surgery, the chance of some recovery was "a little bit" less than
  fifty percent.  

       ¶  5.  In a written decision, the trial court granted the motion,
  finding that plaintiff had failed to show that his condition was more
  likely than not the result of Dr. Parrott's negligence, and rejecting
  plaintiff's effort to recover on a lesser showing under the so-called "loss
  of chance" doctrine.  This appeal followed.

       ¶  6.  In reviewing a summary judgment we apply the same standard as
  the trial court, affirming the judgment only when the moving party has
  demonstrated that there are no genuine issues of material fact and the
  party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and resolving all
  reasonable doubts in favor of the party opposing the motion.  O'Donnell v.
  Bank of Vt., 166 Vt. 221, 224,