Court Opinion

ID: 9733040
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 16:51:01.156749+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:37.904454
License: Public Domain

KLAPHAKE, Judge
(concurring in part, dissenting in part).
I concur with the majority as to the jury instructions. The trial court gave a correct statement of the applicable law. I must respectfully dissent, however, because I believe the admission of inadmissible hearsay testimony regarding the CVC committee’s review of appellant’s cardiovascular charts was an abuse of discretion which clearly prejudiced appellant.
On cross-examination, appellant’s counsel asked two questions about the CVC committee:
Q. Doctor, does North Memorial Medical Hospital have a CVC committee?
A. Yes.
Q. What is that?
A. The CVC committee is the cardiovascular coordinating committee.
Q. Thank you, Doctor.
*500Appellant’s counsel asked nothing about the CVC committee’s purpose, function, authority, composition, or any other “substantive” matter. I fail to see how this exchange opened the door to the admission of clearly inadmissible hearsay as to the results of the CVC committee review. See Minn.R.Evid. 801(c) (hearsay is out-of-court statement offered to prove truth of matter asserted). This hearsay testimony was directly related to the critical issue in this case — the breach of the standard of care. Its admission created the strong possibility, supported by the verdict of no negligence, that the jury would accord the hearsay high probative value when, in fact, it deserved none.
While I recognize the trial court’s broad discretion in evidentiary matters, in a close case such as this I believe admission of the hearsay testimony was prejudicial and requires a new trial. See Bradley v. Shaw, 309 Minn. 442, 446, 244 N.W.2d 666, 668-69 (1976) (admission of accident participant’s hearsay statement to police officer prejudicial in close negligence case); Zubryski v. Minneapolis St. Ry. Co., 243 Minn. 450, 455-56, 68 N.W.2d 489, 492 (1955) (prejudice occurred in close negligence case where, based upon cross-examination questions, jury may have wrongfully inferred expert witness was withholding information); Independent Sch. Disk No. 35, St. Louis County v. A. Hedenberg & Co., 214 Minn. 82, 100, 7 N.W.2d 511, 521 (1943) (erroneous admission of evidence reversible if prejudice occurs). I, therefore, respectfully dissent.