Title: Quirion v. Forcier

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

QUIRION_V_FORCIER.91-354; 161 Vt. 15; 632 A.2d 365

[Filed 24-Sep-1993]

 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. 91-354


 Sandra S. Quirion, Administratrix              Supreme Court
 of the Estate of Peter R. Quirion

                                                On Appeal from
      v.                                        Orleans Superior Court

 R. Jackson Forcier, M.D. and                   March Term, 1993
 Hitchcock Clinic


 Shireen Avis Fisher, J.

 Gregory P. Howe, Newport, for plaintiff-appellant

 David L. Cleary and Kaveh S. Shahi of David L. Cleary Associates,
   Rutland, for defendants-appellees


 PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


      DOOLEY, J.   This is a medical malpractice action by Sandra Quirion,
 spouse of decedent Peter Quirion and administratrix of his estate, against
 Dr. R. Jackson Forcier and the Hitchcock Clinic, a part of Dartmouth
 Hitchcock Medical Center.  After trial in the Orleans Superior Court, the
 jury brought in a defendants' verdict.  On appeal, plaintiff claims that the
 trial court erred in allowing in evidence that (1) plaintiff settled with
 three other doctors prior to trial; (2) these other doctors were negligent
 in their treatment of decedent; and (3) plaintiff regularly used marijuana.
 We affirm.
      Decedent complained of chest pains from 1978 until his death in 1985,
 at thirty-three.  During the period between 1982 and October 3, 1985, he was

 

 treated for this condition by Dr. James Holcomb, his primary physician; Dr.
 Richard Beloin, partner of Dr. Holcomb; and Dr. Alan Feltmarch, an emergency
 room physician at North Country Hospital.  Each of these doctors practices
 in the area of decedent's residence in Newport, Vermont.
      Decedent became dissatisfied with the lack of relief from the Newport-
 area doctors and, on the advice of a neighbor, consulted defendant Forcier
 in his office in Hanover, New Hampshire.  Following a one-hour examination
 on October 3, 1985, defendant sent letters to decedent and Dr. Holcomb
 outlining his conclusions.  The letter to Dr. Holcomb outlined the medical
 history, as conveyed by decedent, and the examination findings, and
 concluded, "I do not believe that Mr. Quirion's chest pain is related to
 coronary artery disease."  The letter suggested that the pain might be
 related to "reflux esophagitis" and recommended certain tests.  It also
 suggested that the symptoms might be brought on by anxiety.  There was no
 follow-up to this letter by Dr. Holcomb.   A little over a month later,
 decedent died of a heart attack and an autopsy showed blockage of the
 coronary arteries.
      Plaintiff sued the three Newport-area doctors, as well as defendants,
 and retained Dr. Alan Markowitz of Cleveland, Ohio as her expert witness.
 Dr. Markowitz was deposed by counsel for each of the defendants in 1990.
 Thereafter, plaintiff settled with the Newport-area doctors, leaving only
 defendants Forcier and the Hitchcock Clinic in the case.  Because Dr.
 Markowitz would not be available for trial, plaintiff conducted a second
 deposition of him by video, with cross-examination by counsel for
 defendants.  This video deposition, with certain parts excised, became Dr.
 Markowitz's testimony at trial.  Similarly, an expert witness for

 

 defendants, Dr. Thomas Ryan, testified at a videotaped deposition, and this
 deposition became his testimony at trial.
      After two days of testimony, the jury found that defendants had not
 been negligent in their treatment of decedent.  Plaintiff's appeal relates
 to certain evidentiary issues that were raised before trial by motions in
 limine and during trial by appropriate objections.  The issues involve the
 admissibility of the evidence of the settlement with the Newport-area
 doctors, evidence of their negligence, and evidence of decedent's marijuana
 usage.  We take them in this order.
      During the video deposition of Dr. Markowitz, defendants' counsel
 asked questions related to plaintiff's settlement with the Newport-area
 doctors, attempting to show that Dr. Markowitz changed his testimony between
 the two depositions.  According to defendants, in the first deposition Dr.
 Markowitz testified that the negligence of Doctors Holcomb, Beloin and
 Feltmarch was primarily responsible for decedent's death and that Dr.
 Forcier was largely blameless.  In defendants' view, Dr. Markowitz changed
 his analysis with respect to Dr. Forcier after learning of the settlement
 and targeted him with responsibility.  Defendants argue that the evidence of
 the settlements was necessary to show the reason for Dr. Markowitz's change
 of testimony.
      Plaintiff moved in limine to exclude "any references to culpability on
 the part of former defendants Holcomb, Beloin and Feltmarch" as irrelevant
 to Dr. Forcier's negligence and specifically to exclude from the Markowitz
 testimony references to plaintiff's settlement with these doctors.  The
 trial court denied these motions, and admitted the evidence at trial.  As
 to the involvement of the other doctors, the court ruled that this would

 

 inevitably be part of the background and would go to the ability to diagnose
 decedent's condition from the symptoms.  The court ruled that the fact of the
 settlement could be used in cross-examining Dr. Markowitz and was related to 
 his
 credibility.  It left to trial any further reasons to develop the settlement
 information.  At trial, the court stated in its instructions to the jury that 
 the
 fact of the settlements could be considered only as bearing on Dr. Markowitz's
 credibility and not on defendants' negligence.  The court also stated that the
 jury was not to consider whether the former defendants were negligent or how 
 that
 negligence would compare with that of Dr. Forcier.
    On the first point, plaintiff relies primarily on Slayton v. Ford Motor Co.,
 140 Vt. 27, 29,