Opinion ID: 1979794
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Inconsistencies in the Testimony of Dr. Brock and Dr. Moossa

Text: Doctor Latina points out that during the protracted discovery and litigation in this case, Dr. Brock has at various times testified that the injury that Franco suffered could have occurred even if the standard of care was followed. In particular defendant highlights a portion of the cross-examination of Dr. Brock in a 2000 deposition: Q Okay, so you had learned from the literature you had studied, from the doctors whose experience you defer to, that this operation can be done within the standard of care, doing all the techniques, on a patient like Mrs. Franco, who had no hostile environment,[ [12] ] and still, this injury could occur, correct? A That was their opinion. Q Which you adopted, correct? A At the time. The above colloquy may show that, in the past, Dr. Brock accepted the opinion that the injury Franco sustained could occur when the standard of care was met. However, it does not show that Dr. Brock was of the opinion that the cystic duct could be misidentified while performing a laparoscopic cholecystectomy within the standard of care. Furthermore, it is readily apparent from a fair review of all Dr. Brock's testimony that his expert opinion was that the standard of care required conclusive identification of the cystic duct before cutting. [13] Even if Dr. Brock's testimony could give rise to an inference that, in a hostile environment, the standard of care may not demand conclusive identification, it is undisputed that Franco's surgery did not take place in a hostile environment. Therefore, any testimony referring to that circumstance has no relevance. Doctor Latina also suggests that Dr. Moossa was inconsistent in terms of how he defined the standard of care when hostile conditions were present. But again, it is undisputed that Franco's surgery was not performed under hostile conditions. Doctor Moossa testified unequivocally that the standard of care for laparoscopic cholecystectomy required correct, in-fact identification of the cystic duct before any clipping or cutting took place. [14] After scouring the record, we see no inherent inconsistencies between the testimony of Dr. Brock and Dr. Moossa concerning the applicable standard of care, and there are no substantial differences between the opinions of the two plaintiff's experts as to what constitutes that standard of care for the surgical procedure in question. Both doctors agree that conclusive, unmistakable, in-fact identification of the cystic duct is required before any cutting takes place when performing a laparoscopic cholecystectomy. We have held in the past that we will overturn a trial justice's decision granting a motion for judgment as a matter of law when the trial justice has invaded the province of the jury by impermissibly finding facts. Martino v. Leary, 739 A.2d 1181, 1183 (R.I.1999). However, the trial justice cannot be said to have found facts when all she has done is accept uncontradicted testimony. In fact we have previously held that rejecting uncontroverted medical testimony is a manifest error of law. Villa v. Eastern Wire Products Co., 554 A.2d 644, 647 (R.I.1989). In this case the trial justice did not err in concluding that the testimony of Drs. Brock and Moossa was consistent that the standard of care required the correct identification of the cystic duct, and we agree with the trial justice that there was no inconsistency between the opinions of the plaintiff's experts. In our opinion, in completing this arduous task, the trial justice did not improperly weigh the evidence or assess the credibility of the witnesses. 2