Thomas v. Summit Health Care

Richmond County Circuit Court

Thomas v. Summit Health Care

64 Va. Cir. 39, 2004 Va. Cir. LEXIS 206

CourtRichmond County Circuit Court

DecidedJanuary 13, 2004

DocketCase No. LP-1057-1

StatusPublished

This text of 64 Va. Cir. 39 (Thomas v. Summit Health Care) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Richmond County Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Thomas v. Summit Health Care, 64 Va. Cir. 39, 2004 Va. Cir. LEXIS 206 (Va. Super. Ct. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

By Judge Melvin R. Hughes, Jr.

After the meeting this morning, I viewed the video tape Ms. Sher left with me, which is the subject of the issue between the parties as to whether it can be shown to the jury in this medical malpractice case. The tape, “Shoulder Dystocia Drill,” discusses the problem of shoulder dystocia and the techniques available to avoid it when the problem presents itself during the birth process. While, as I thought, the tape is at least informative, I must find, as plaintiff argues, that inter alia, it is replete with opinion testimony on how to best deal with the circumstances that could lead to the condition. Showing the tape would deprive the plaintiff of the right to cross-examine the commentator, a Dr. William Young, on issues such as, evaluating medical necessity and the employment of the various techniques described, timing etc. I think too that plaintiffs objection to its use as a medical treatise is well founded under Va. Code § 8.01-401.1, the case of Constanino, etc. v. Herzog, 203 F.3d 164 (2000), notwithstanding. So, defendant’s request to show the tape is denied.

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

By Judge Melvin R. Hughes, Jr.

After the meeting this morning, I viewed the video tape Ms. Sher left with me, which is the subject of the issue between the parties as to whether it can be shown to the jury in this medical malpractice case. The tape, “Shoulder Dystocia Drill,” discusses the problem of shoulder dystocia and the techniques available to avoid it when the problem presents itself during the birth process. While, as I thought, the tape is at least informative, I must find, as plaintiff argues, that inter alia, it is replete with opinion testimony on how to best deal with the circumstances that could lead to the condition. Showing the tape would deprive the plaintiff of the right to cross-examine the commentator, a Dr. William Young, on issues such as, evaluating medical necessity and the employment of the various techniques described, timing etc. I think too that plaintiffs objection to its use as a medical treatise is well founded under Va. Code § 8.01-401.1, the case of Constanino, etc. v. Herzog, 203 F.3d 164 (2000), notwithstanding. So, defendant’s request to show the tape is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

64 Va. Cir. 39, 2004 Va. Cir. LEXIS 206, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-v-summit-health-care-vaccrichmondcty-2004.