Aumand v. Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center

611 F.Supp.2d 78 (2009)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Coffey, who was seventy-eight years old at the time and discharged from D following successful coronary bypass surgery. Coffey was readmitted two days later complaining of shortness of breath. D proceeded to administer several doses of glucose, or 'D-50,' by way of a catheter inserted into her left hand. D noted that her left hand appeared blue and swollen, so the catheter was removed and replaced with one in her left elbow. Coffey began complaining of numbness in her hand. D believed that the glucose had 'infiltrated' or 'extravasated,' i.e., penetrated the tissue outside of her veins. Coffey was discharged but the condition of her left hand continued to deteriorate. She was readmitted a week later when two of her fingers and part of another on her left hand--which had undergone mummification--were amputated. Coffey went to Springfield Rehabilitation for about two weeks. Blood and pus were observed draining from her wounds. Coffey's surgeon concluded she would need a skin graft to her left hand. That procedure, performed during a one-day visit to D, used skin harvested from Coffey's abdomen. Two weeks later Coffey was complaining of shortness of breath and dry heaves, followed by a high fever, low blood pressure, and respiratory distress which appeared after her admission. Coffey had methicillin-resistant staphylcoccus areus or MRSA. Coffey died from a heart attack brought on by the infection. The doctor who performed an autopsy and an expert witness doctor identified the wounds from the amputation as the probable portal of entry for the MSRA. P sued D asserting a medical malpractice claim. D denied all the allegations. Both parties proffered motions in limine. D seeks to preclude evidence of two statements allegedly made to members of Coffey's family by its employees. Coffey's son, James, was concerned about the appearance of his mother's hand and asked a man whom he met in the corridor near the nurse's station, whether he had seen or touched the hand. The man told him 'it was an injection of D-50 into the tissue of her hand. Someone had made a mistake. He had never seen anything like it.' James could not recall anything about the man's appearance, such as his hair color, clothing, the characteristics of his voice, or what he was holding or doing at the time. Ps argue that it is 'a statement by the party's agent or servant concerning a matter within the scope of the agency or employment, made during the existence of the relationship' under Rule 801(d)(2)(D). D objects because of James's inability to recall anything about the man who made the statement nor can Ps show that he even was the hospital's employee, let alone that the subject of the statement, Coffey's condition, was within the scope of any such employment.