Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P gave birth in 1987 and her doctor, performed an episiotomy. P developed complications at the site of the surgery and sued her doctor (D) and the hospital (D1). A directed verdict was issued, and P appealed; the trial court erred in excluding testimony of her expert witness, which exclusion resulted in the directed verdict. The expert that P wanted to testify was excluded under the similar locality rule in that the Dr. practiced in New York vs. Rhode Island. Current Rhode Island law was interpreted to require the testifying expert to be in the same medical field as the defendant physician. The court allowed P a two-day recess to get another expert, but that proved impossible. D's then moved for a directed verdict and got it. P appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.