Find Laws Find Lawyers Free Legal Forms USA State Laws
Laws-info.com » Cases » New Hampshire » Supreme Court » 2208 » 2007-102, SHELBY BAXTER, BY HER MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND, PATRICIA BAXTER v. CHARLES TEMPLE & a.
2007-102, SHELBY BAXTER, BY HER MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND, PATRICIA BAXTER v. CHARLES TEMPLE & a.
State: New Hampshire
Court: Supreme Court
Docket No: 2007-102
Case Date: 05/20/2208
Preview:NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme Court of New Hampshire, One Charles Doe Drive, Concord, New Hampshire 03301, of any editorial errors in order that corrections may be made before the opinion goes to press. Errors may be reported by E-mail at the following address: reporter@courts.state.nh.us. Opinions are available on the Internet by 9:00 a.m. on the morning of their release. The direct address of the court's home page is: http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme. THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE ___________________________ Merrimack No. 2007-102 SHELBY BAXTER, BY HER MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND, PATRICIA BAXTER v. CHARLES TEMPLE & a. Argued: January 31, 2008 Opinion Issued: May 20, 2008 Seufert Professional Association, of Franklin (Christopher J. Seufert on the brief), and Thornton & Naumes, LLP, of Boston, Massachusetts (Neil T. Leifer and Andrew S. Wainwright on the brief, and Mr. Leifer orally), for the plaintiff. Wiggin & Nourie, P.A., of Manchester (Gary M. Burt and Doreen F. Connor on the brief, and Mr. Burt orally), for the defendants. Hall, Stewart & Murphy, P.A., of Manchester (Francis G. Murphy on the brief and orally), for the American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology, as amicus curiae. DUGGAN, J. The minor plaintiff, Shelby Baxter, by and through her mother and next friend, Patricia Baxter, appeals the exclusion by the Trial Court (Hollman, J.) of two expert witnesses in her negligence action against the

defendants, Charles and Kelly Temple. The exclusion of these witnesses resulted in dismissal of the plaintiff's case. We reverse in part, vacate in part, and remand. I. Factual and Procedural Background The record supports the following relevant facts. Between May 11, 1995, and May 11, 1996, the plaintiff and her parents resided in an apartment in Concord that they rented from the defendants. In early September 1995, the plaintiff, who was almost fourteen months old at the time, was tested for lead paint poisoning. The test results revealed an elevated blood lead level of thirtysix micrograms per deciliter. On September 26, 1995, the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services investigated the premises and found substantial evidence of lead paint contamination. The plaintiff subsequently filed this action, alleging, among other things, that the defendants failed to warn her of the presence and dangers of the lead paint. She contended that her exposure to and ingestion of the high levels of lead paint present in the apartment caused her to suffer from "lead paint poisoning and the effects thereof including but not limited to: reduced life expectancy, brain damage, past and future pain and suffering, and loss of expected earnings capacity . . . ." To prove her case, the plaintiff designated three expert witnesses: (1) Barbara Bruno-Golden, Ed.D., a neuropsychologist who evaluated the plaintiff by administering a series of neuropsychological tests to determine her cognitive and behavioral status; (2) William Bithoney, M.D., a pediatrician who concluded that the plaintiff suffers from organic brain syndrome caused by lead poisoning; and (3) Arthur Kaufman, M.Ed., a vocational rehabilitation specialist. On the day of trial, the defendants moved in limine to exclude the testimony of Dr. Bruno-Golden as unreliable under New Hampshire Rule of Evidence 702, RSA 516:29-a (2007), and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). Thereafter, the trial court held a six-day Daubert hearing. The trial court heard testimony from: (1) Dr. Bruno-Golden; (2) Sandra J. Shaheen, Ph.D., a pediatric neuropsychologist introduced by the plaintiff to support Dr. BrunoGolden's testimony; and (3) David Faust, Ph.D., a psychologist presented by the defendants to criticize Dr. Bruno-Golden's testimony. The trial court, in a lengthy order, subsequently ruled that Dr. Bruno-Golden's testimony was inadmissible. The plaintiff moved for reconsideration, requesting that the trial court allow Dr. Bruno-Golden to testify to her administration and scoring of three

2

specific tests
Download 2007-102, SHELBY BAXTER, BY HER MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND, PATRICIA BAXTER v. CHARL

New Hampshire Law

New Hampshire State Laws
New Hampshire Tax
New Hampshire Court
New Hampshire Labor Laws
New Hampshire Agencies

Comments

Tips