Title: Reifman v. Gorsen (order)

State: virginia

Issuer: Virginia Supreme Court

Document:

VIRGINIA: 
 
 
In the Supreme Court of Virginia held at the Supreme Court 
Building in the City of Richmond, on Friday, the 20th day of April, 
2007. 
 
Suzanne Reifman, Personal Representative 
for the Estate of Bruce Reifman, Deceased, 
 
Appellant, 
 
   against 
Record No. 061230 
 
 
 
Circuit Court No. 2004-222159 
 
Robert M. Gorsen, M.D., et al., 
 
 
 
Appellees. 
 
 
 
 
Upon an appeal from a judgment rendered by the 
Circuit Court of Fairfax County. 
 
 
Upon consideration of the record, briefs, and the arguments of 
counsel, the Court is of opinion that there is no reversible error 
in the judgment of the Circuit Court of Fairfax County. 
 
Suzanne Reifman, personal representative for the estate of 
Bruce Reifman, deceased, brought this action against Robert M. 
Gorsen, M.D., Kathleen B. French, M.D., Daniel R. Swerdlow, M.D., 
and Fairfax Radiological Consultants, P.C., to recover damages for 
medical malpractice.  The plaintiff contended that each defendant 
departed from the applicable standard of care in failing to make a 
timely diagnosis of hydrocephalus,∗ the immediate cause of the 
decedent's death.  A five-day jury trial resulted in a verdict in 
favor of all defendants.  The circuit court entered final judgment 
on the verdict and we awarded the plaintiff an appeal. 
 
There is a single assignment of error:  That the circuit court 
erred in refusing to admit into evidence Exhibit 18A, a medical 
                     
∗ The parties do not dispute that for purposes of the present 
case hydrocephalus refers to the accumulation of cerebral spinal 
fluid in the ventricles of the brain, leading to their enlargement 
and swelling. 
 
2
record transcribed on April 21, 2001 at Inova Alexandria Hospital, 
consisting of an addendum to a report of a magnetic resonance 
imaging scan of the decedent's brain made while he was a patient at 
that hospital (the Alexandria report). 
 
The day after the Alexandria report was transcribed, the 
decedent was admitted to Inova Fairfax Hospital, where he expired on 
April 28, 2001.  Dr. Gorsen had been the decedent's attending 
neurosurgeon since 1999.  Personnel at the Alexandria hospital were 
aware of that relationship and sent a copy of the Alexandria report 
to Dr. Gorsen's office.  Dr. Gorsen, however, was attending a 
conference in Toronto at the time and did not return to Virginia 
until April 25, 2001.  He made a handwritten notation on his copy of 
the Alexandria report that he had not received it until May 2, 2001, 
after the decedent's death. 
 
At trial, the plaintiff offered no evidence to refute Dr. 
Gorsen's assertion of the time he had received the Alexandria report 
and there was no evidence that any of the other defendants had ever 
seen it before the death of the decedent.  The court marked the 
report Exhibit 18A for identification and gave plaintiff's counsel 
an opportunity to lay a foundation for its admission. 
 
Plaintiff's counsel cross-examined Dr. Gorsen concerning the 
content of the report as well as the time of its receipt, in an 
effort to lay a foundation for its admission.  Plaintiff's counsel 
was permitted to refer to it again in his closing argument to the 
jury, contending that it showed that Dr. Gorsen had timely notice of 
the decedent's condition.  Nevertheless, plaintiff's counsel never 
moved the court to admit Exhibit 18A in evidence until after the 
 
3
evidence was closed, the parties had rested, an alternate juror had 
been excused, the court had instructed the jury, and the jury had 
retired to consider its verdict.  When counsel then, for the first 
time, moved for the exhibit's admission, the court denied the 
motion, observing that if the exhibit were to be admitted, a 
limiting instruction would be necessary and it was too late to 
reopen the trial for that purpose. 
 
Even if the exhibit might properly have been admitted into 
evidence, the trial court was given no timely opportunity to do so.  
A motion to admit evidence after the evidence has been closed comes 
too late.  The court might, in its discretion, have permitted the 
reopening of the trial for that purpose, see Mundy v. Commonwealth, 
161 Va. 1049, 1064, 171 S.E. 691, 696 (1933); Bishop v. Webster, 154 
Va. 771, 778, 153 S.E. 832, 834 (1930), but did not abuse its 
discretion in refusing to do so, particularly in light of the 
plaintiff's abundant opportunity to make a timely motion for 
admission of the exhibit during the five days of trial.  See Moore 
v. Dixie Fire Ins. Co., 19 Ga. App. 800, 806-07, 92 S.E. 302, 305 
(1917).  Accordingly, the Court affirms the judgment of the circuit 
court.  The appellant shall pay to the appellees thirty dollars 
damages. 
 
This order shall be published in the Virginia Reports and shall 
be certified to the said circuit court. 
 
A Copy, 
          Teste: 
 
 
 
 
 
Patricia L. Harrington, Clerk