Opinion ID: 1489278
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Rulings Relating to Allegations of Conspiracy/Joint Venture

Text: We turn next to Coulter's contention that the trial court erred in granting, in part, the defendants' motion to preclude evidence and argument of an agency relationship, joint venture, or conspiracy between the defendants. As we understand it, the gravamen of the argument that Coulter intended to present was that Dr. Fullum created false records and correspondence to shelter Dr. Taylor and to assist in covering up Dr. Taylor's alleged negligence. In addition, Coulter's First Amended Complaint alleges that (but does not explain how) Dr. Asomani acted on behalf of Dr. Taylor and Gerald Family Care, that Dr. Taylor acted by and through Dr. Asomani, and that Dr. Fullum act[ed] on behalf of Dr. Taylor, Gerald Family Care, and Dr. Asomani. The first amended complaint did not include a conspiracy claim, but, after defendants filed their motion in limine, Coulter proposed, in an oral motion, to amend her complaint to include such a claim. For reasons similar to those discussed supra with reference to Coulter's motion to amend her complaint to add allegations of sexual misconduct, we conclude that Judge Combs Greene did not abuse her discretion in denying the motion to amend the complaint to add conspiracy allegations. Having denied that amendment, she also did not abuse her discretion in precluding Coulter from introducing evidence of conspiracy. Even assuming arguendo that the trial court erred in granting the defendants' motion in limine to preclude evidence that Dr. Fullum and Dr. Asomani acted as agents of Dr. Taylor and Gerald Family Care, or in joint venture with them, to hide evidence that Dr. Taylor breached the standard of care, we conclude that any such error was harmless. As we explain infra, Coulter failed to present expert testimony that Dr. Taylor (or Gerald Family Care or Dr. Asomani) breached the standard of care and thereby caused injury to Coulter. Thus, there was no basis upon which a jury could have found any of the defendants vicariously liable for medical malpractice in connection with acts or omissions by Dr. Taylor. Cf. Hill v. Medlantic Health Care Group, 933 A.2d 314, 334 (D.C.2007) (civil conspiracy is not an independent tort but only a means for establishing vicarious liability for an underlying tort) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).