S.K., a legally incapacitated Minor by and through his Conservator, Thomas T. Tarbox v. Obstetric & Gynecologic…

Summary

The court reversed the medical-malpractice judgment and remanded for a new trial because the district court improperly admitted the vacuum-device package insert as substantive hearsay. The insert did not qualify under either the residual exception or the market-reports exception, and its admission was prejudicial because it directly addressed a central dispute and was emphasized to the jury. The court did not reach the clinic’s other appellate arguments.