Case Title: Boehm v. Willis

Citation: 180 Vt. 615, 2006 VT 101, 910 A.2d 908

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2006-10-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
Boehm v. Willis (2005-265); 180 Vt. 615; 910 A.2d 908

2006 VT 101

[Filed 03-Oct-2006]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2006 VT 101

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2005-265

                               MAY TERM, 2006

  Kenneth Boehm                      }           APPEALED FROM:
                                     }
                                     }
       v.                            }           Bennington Superior Court
                                     }  
  Shawn Willis                       }
                                     }           DOCKET NO. 340-10-03 Bncv

                                                 Trial Judge:  Karen Carroll

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       ¶  1.  Plaintiff, Kenneth Boehm appeals the trial court's denial of
  his motion for new trial.  He contends that the transcript of defendant's
  expert's deposition testimony should not have been admitted.  In addition,
  he argues that the verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence and
  should be set aside.  We affirm.

       ¶  2.  On January 23, 2003, plaintiff Kenneth Boehm was driving to
  see his physician, Dr. Ronald Woodworth, who had been treating plaintiff
  for an old injury to his left shoulder.  As he attempted to make a
  left-hand turn, defendant drove into the driver's side of plaintiff's car,
  propelling plaintiff's car head-on into a large tree.  Plaintiff was taken
  to a local hospital, treated for a left shoulder contusion, and released. 
  Plaintiff continued treatment with Dr. Woodworth after the accident for the
  left shoulder injury and other injuries.

       ¶  3.  After the accident, plaintiff's insurer asked him to visit
  the insurer's physician, Dr. Vinay B. Das, for an independent medical
  examination (IME).  Dr. Das, a doctor of internal medicine, performed the
  IME at his office in Albany, New York on April 17, 2003.  Dr. Das then
  wrote a report concluding that, in his opinion, plaintiff's "left shoulder
  contusion that is related to the motor vehicle accident . . . has
  completely resolved."  He also concluded that plaintiff's "current
  symptomatology is due to the pre-existing medical condition in his left
  upper extremity . . .  I do not think that the motor vehicle accident of
  January 23, 2003 resulted in any aggravation of his pre-existing condition.
  . . . In my opinion, the claimant has reached a pre-accident status." 

       ¶  4.  In October 2003, plaintiff commenced the instant tort action
  for damages.  In December 2003, the court approved a stipulated discovery
  schedule that required defendant to disclose his expert witnesses, if any,
  by October 1, 2004.
   
       ¶  5.  Plaintiff disclosed Dr. Das's report on August 20, 2004, as
  part of his responses to defendant's discovery requests.  On October 26,
  2004, one day after the parties attempted unsuccessfully to resolve the
  case through mediation, defendant wrote to plaintiff to request the
  depositions of Dr. Das and Dr. Woodworth, plaintiff's disclosed expert
  witness.  Receiving no response from plaintiff, on November 18, 2004,
  defendant advised plaintiff that Dr. Das would be defendant's expert
  witness at trial and filed a notice of "the videotaped trial preservation
  deposition" of Dr. Das.  The next day, plaintiff moved for a protective
  order based on the fact that defendant disclosed Dr. Das as his expert
  after the October 1 deadline in the stipulated discovery schedule.  The
  court denied the motion, noting that, unlike the typical situation where "a
  party hires an expert . . . and then neglects to inform opposing counsel,"
  here "the expert and his conclusions were first known to Plaintiff, not the
  Defendant.  Plaintiff has been aware of the expert's opinion for some
  time."  Accordingly, the court held that any prejudice to plaintiff was
  minimal.

       ¶  6.  Prior to the December 15 deposition, defendant had advised
  plaintiff that Dr. Das refused to be recorded on video.  The deposition
  took place in Dr. Das's office on December 15, 2004, and was recorded
  stenographically.  A week later, plaintiff moved to exclude Dr. Das's
  deposition at trial because it was not videotaped as noticed and because,
  as defendant's expert, Dr. Das was required to testify in open court. 
  Defendant argued that because Dr. Das was unavailable under Rule 32 of the
  Vermont Rules of Civil Procedure, his deposition testimony should be
  admitted.  The court deferred ruling on the availability of Dr. Das until
  the deposition was offered at trial, at which point the court would
  consider defendant's efforts to secure Dr. Das's appearance at trial.

       ¶  7.  Shortly before Dr. Das's deposition, the court set February
  1, 2005, for jury draw, with the trial to take place on February 9-11.  On
  January 5, 2005, defendant moved to continue the jury draw, and the court
  granted the motion on January 20 and noticed jury draw for March 15, 2005
  and trial for March 28-30, 2005.

       ¶  8.  Before the change in trial date, defense counsel wrote to Dr.
  Das, requesting that he agree to travel to Vermont to appear at trial for
  the February trial dates.  Defense counsel advised Dr. Das that "[w]e
  expect the Judge will rule that under Vermont law the deposition is
  admissible only if you are 'unavailable.' "  The letter explained counsel's
  expectation that the court would consider whether Dr. Das was subject to a
  subpoena and willing to appear voluntarily in determining his availability. 
  Dr. Das replied, by letter dated January 20, 2005, that he did not own a
  business or residence in Vermont and that he would not appear voluntarily
  because he was unable to arrange adequate coverage for his busy medical
  practice "during the trial period."  

       ¶  9.  On February 4, 2005, defendant moved to admit Dr. Das's
  deposition testimony because Dr. Das was unavailable.  The court granted
  the motion, reasoning that Dr. Das's refusal to appear at trial combined
  with the fact that he was beyond the court's subpoena power rendered him
  unavailable.   On the first day of trial, plaintiff renewed his motion to
  exclude the deposition testimony and also moved to exclude the testimony
  under Daubert v.Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,