Gina M. Arnold, Appellant and Cross-Appellee v. David Grigsby, M.d., Appellee and Cross-Appellant. (Utah 2018)

Summary

The Utah Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the jury could reasonably find the malpractice claim time‑barred, that the trial court properly denied summary judgment and a directed verdict, correctly admitted the husband’s testimony and the nurse’s note under the business‑records exception, and issued adequate jury instructions. The court also dismissed the cross‑appeal as moot.

Holding

Whether the appellate court may review the trial court's denial of a summary‑judgment motion when factual disputes exist. The denial of summary judgment is not reviewable because the trial court found a genuine dispute of material fact; such denials are reviewed only for legal correctness, which was not at issue here

Whether the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the husband’s testimony about a nurse’s statement. The testimony was admissible because it was offered to show its effect on the hearer, not for the truth of the matter asserted, and the trial court did not abuse discretion

Whether the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the nurse’s sticky‑note under the business‑records exception. The sticky‑note was admissible under the business‑records exception (Rule 803(6)) and the trial court did not abuse discretion

Whether the trial court erred in denying a motion for a directed verdict on the discovery‑rule issue. A directed verdict was improper because the issue of when Ms. Arnold should have discovered her injury is a mixed question of law and fact that should be decided by a jury

Whether the trial court’s jury instructions were misleading or erroneous. The jury instructions, taken as a whole, correctly stated the law and were not misleading

Summary

Holding

Cited by