Soares v. Vestal

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Soares v. Vestal

632 A.2d 647, 1993 R.I. LEXIS 229, 1993 WL 444591

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedNovember 3, 1993

Docket92-649-Appeal

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 632 A.2d 647 (Soares v. Vestal) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Soares v. Vestal, 632 A.2d 647, 1993 R.I. LEXIS 229, 1993 WL 444591 (R.I. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

This case came before a hearing panel of this court pursuant to an order directing Joseph Soares (plaintiff) to show cause why his appeal from a Superior Court judgment granting a directed verdict for Dr. Janie Vestal (defendant), should not be summarily decided.

The plaintiff brought suit alleging inter alia that defendant’s failure to x-ray his wrist and hand following his motorcycle accident constituted medical malpractice and proximately caused a nonunion of certain wrist bones. At trial, the deposition of plaintiffs witness, Dr. Michael Ronthal, acting chief of neurology at Beth Israel Hospital in *648 Boston, was not admitted. The plaintiff challenges the trial justice’s exclusion of Dr. Ron-thal’s expert testimony.

The trial justice reasoned that because the witness, who was trained in South Africa, was not certified in either emergency medicine or family practice, his board certifications in neurology and internal medicine did not qualify him under G.L.1966 (1985 Reenactment) § 9-19-41, as enacted by P.L.1986, ch. 350, § 5. The plaintiff argues that § 9-19 — 11 has been superseded by Rule 702 of the Rhode Island Rules of Evidence.

We are of the opinion that the decision on the admissibility of evidence is well within the discretion of the trial justice. We read, at this juncture, § 9-19-41 and Rule 702 as complementary rather than contradictory to each other.' In this matter we need not reach the issues presented by Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), but we expect that the issues it raises in relation to Rule 702 will be addressed in due course. Because the plaintiff did not raise his challenge to the constitutionality of § 9-19-41 at trial, we decline to address it on appeal. Bouchard v. Clark, 581 A.2d 715 (R.I.1990).

For these reasons the plaintiffs appeal is denied and dismissed. The trial justice’s order granting a directed verdict for the defendant is affirmed.

WEISBERGER, A.C.J., did not participate.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

This case came before a hearing panel of this court pursuant to an order directing Joseph Soares (plaintiff) to show cause why his appeal from a Superior Court judgment granting a directed verdict for Dr. Janie Vestal (defendant), should not be summarily decided.

The plaintiff brought suit alleging inter alia that defendant’s failure to x-ray his wrist and hand following his motorcycle accident constituted medical malpractice and proximately caused a nonunion of certain wrist bones. At trial, the deposition of plaintiffs witness, Dr. Michael Ronthal, acting chief of neurology at Beth Israel Hospital in *648 Boston, was not admitted. The plaintiff challenges the trial justice’s exclusion of Dr. Ron-thal’s expert testimony.

The trial justice reasoned that because the witness, who was trained in South Africa, was not certified in either emergency medicine or family practice, his board certifications in neurology and internal medicine did not qualify him under G.L.1966 (1985 Reenactment) § 9-19-41, as enacted by P.L.1986, ch. 350, § 5. The plaintiff argues that § 9-19 — 11 has been superseded by Rule 702 of the Rhode Island Rules of Evidence.

We are of the opinion that the decision on the admissibility of evidence is well within the discretion of the trial justice. We read, at this juncture, § 9-19-41 and Rule 702 as complementary rather than contradictory to each other.' In this matter we need not reach the issues presented by Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), but we expect that the issues it raises in relation to Rule 702 will be addressed in due course. Because the plaintiff did not raise his challenge to the constitutionality of § 9-19-41 at trial, we decline to address it on appeal. Bouchard v. Clark, 581 A.2d 715 (R.I.1990).

For these reasons the plaintiffs appeal is denied and dismissed. The trial justice’s order granting a directed verdict for the defendant is affirmed.

WEISBERGER, A.C.J., did not participate.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

632 A.2d 647, 1993 R.I. LEXIS 229, 1993 WL 444591, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/soares-v-vestal-ri-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack