Title: Pirdair v. Medical Center Hospital of Vermont

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Pirdair v. Medical Center Hospital of Vermont (2000-443); 173 Vt. 411;
800 A.2d 438

[Filed 29-Mar-2002]

[Motion for Reargument Denied 25-Apr-2002]

       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. 2000-443

Soozan Pirdair, et al.	                         Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
     v.	                                         Chittenden Superior Court

Medical Center Hospital of Vermont	         January Term, 2002

Matthew I. Katz, J.

John F. Evers and Devin McLauglin of Langrock Sperry & Wool, Middlebury, 
  and Michael P. Hall of Hall, Hess, Stewart, Murphy & Brown, Manchester, 
  New Hampshire, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

John Davis Buckley and Peter B. Joslin of Theriault & Joslin, P.C., Montpelier,
  for Defendants-Appellees.

PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Dooley, Morse, Johnson and Skoglund, JJ.

       MORSE, J.    Plaintiffs appeal from the judgment of the superior court
  following a jury  verdict in favor of defendants on their claim for medical
  malpractice.  Plaintiffs Sandra Baird, the  administrator of the estate of
  Ahmad Sharifian and guardian for Mr. Sharifian's wife, Soozan Pirdair,  and
  Mary Kehoe, the guardian of Mr. Sharifian's son Boback Sharifian, pursued a
  claim brought  against defendants Dr. Bela Ratkovits, Associates in
  Radiology and Fletcher Allen, as successor in  interest to Medical Center
  Hospital of Vermont, for failing to detect a subdural hematoma that 

 

  resulted from a car accident involving Mr. Sharifian. (FN1)  Plaintiffs
  argue the trial court erroneously  denied their motions for a new trial
  based on newly discovered evidence and based on their  contention that the
  verdict was against the great weight of the evidence.  Plaintiffs also
  argue that the  trial court committed reversible error by admitting certain
  statements of Mr. Sharifian made prior to  his death.  We affirm.

       The following facts are undisputed.  Mr. Sharifian, his wife and son
  were involved in a car  accident on July 3, 1994.  He was brought to
  Medical Center Hospital of Vermont and treated for  various injuries,
  including a broken leg and contusions on his head, as well as a fracture of
  one of the  vertebrae in his neck.  He was also given a CAT scan that day
  because of concern regarding a head  injury.  The CAT scan was then
  evaluated on July 5 by Dr. Ratkovits of Associates in Radiology,  which
  contracted with MCHV to read the hospital's CAT scans.  Although the CAT
  scan showed  signs of a small subdural hematoma on the right side of Mr.
  Sharifian's head, Dr. Ratkovits did not  detect it.  MCHV continued to
  treat Mr. Sharifian for his other injuries.

       On July 7, Mr. Sharifian fell to the floor after using a walker to get
  to the bathroom in the  hospital room he shared with his wife, who was also
  being treated for a broken vertebra from the  accident.  When hospital
  personnel responded to a scream from his wife, they found him in a non-
  responsive state on the floor, with his head against the wall.  A CAT scan
  revealed a large subdural  hematoma on the right side of his head, and Mr.
  Sharifian was rushed to surgery.  Surgery revealed  two ruptured veins in
  Mr. Sharifian's brain.  Despite the surgery, Mr. Sharifian suffered severe
  brain  damage and remained in a coma for fifteen months before he was
  finally taken off life support in  September 1995.

 

       Ms. Pirdair brought suit against defendants as the administrator of
  her husband's estate, on  behalf of the couple's son and on behalf of
  herself.  Eventually, she was replaced as administrator of  the estate, and
  a guardian ad litem was appointed for both her and her son as the toll of
  the events  had rendered her unable to proceed on her own.  The case
  proceeded to trial, which resulted in a jury  verdict in favor of
  defendants.  Plaintiffs now appeal.

       In support of their claim that the trial court improperly denied them
  relief from judgment and  a new trial, plaintiffs make two related
  arguments that center on the interpretation given the July 7  CAT scans by
  the parties' experts and Mr. Sharifian's treating doctors.  They argue that
  newly  discovered evidence that sheds light on the proper interpretation of
  the scans entitles them to a new  trial under V.R.C.P. 60(b)(2) and that
  this new evidence reveals that the opinions of defendants'  experts
  regarding interpretation of the scans amounted to misrepresentations, thus
  entitling them to a  new trial under V.R.C.P. 60(b)(3).  We review the
  trial court's decision on such motions for an abuse  of discretion.  See,
  e.g., Stalb v. Stalb, 168 Vt. 235, 248,