Skip to main content

Pamela Joplin, Individually and in her capacity as of the Estate of Patricia A. Kinney v. Kathleen A. Cassin, M.D.

RIJune 9, 2021No. 18-242

Case Details

Status
Published
Procedural Posture
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Excerpt

The defendant, Kathleen A. Cassin, M.D., appealed from a Superior Court order granting a motion for a new trial in favor of the plaintiff, Pamela Joplin. This medical malpractice action arose out of the death of Patricia A. Kinney, who lost her battle with ovarian cancer in 2014. On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial justice erred in granting the plaintiff's motion for a new trial because reasonable minds could come to different conclusions about proximate causation when considering the evidence in this case. Further, the defendant argued that the trial justice improperly eliminated proximate cause as a separate and distinct element of negligence. The Supreme Court held that reasonable minds, in considering the evidence presented in this case, could come to different conclusions on the question of whether the plaintiff had met her burden of establishing that the defendant's breach was the cause of Mrs. Kinney's death. Further, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial justice erred by replacing the jury's determination with her own. Accordingly, the Supreme Court vacated the Superior Court's order and remanded the case with instructions to reinstate the jury's verdict and enter judgment in accordance with that verdict.

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened:** This case involved a medical malpractice lawsuit, not a typical employment dispute. Patricia Kinney died from ovarian cancer in 2014, and her estate (represented by Pamela Joplin) sued Dr. Kathleen Cassin, claiming the doctor's treatment contributed to Kinney's death. After a trial, the court granted the plaintiff's request for a new trial, meaning they would get to present their case again to a different jury. Dr. Cassin appealed this decision, arguing the judge was wrong to order a new trial. **What the Court Decided:** The appeals court sent the case back to the lower court for further proceedings (remanded). The court did not make a final ruling on whether Dr. Cassin was liable for malpractice. Instead, they focused on whether the trial judge was correct in granting a new trial, specifically regarding questions about what caused Kinney's death. **Why This Matters for Workers:** While this appears to be primarily a medical malpractice case rather than an employment law matter, it demonstrates how complex cases involving professional liability can go through multiple court proceedings. Workers in healthcare and other professional fields should understand that liability disputes can involve lengthy legal processes with appeals and retrials.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Similar Rulings

Jane Doe v. Brown University
RIJun 2021

The plaintiff, Jane Doe, appealed from a Superior Court judgment dismissing her complaint against the defendants, Brown University and two of its employees. In Superior Court, the plaintiff asserted claims under both the Rhode Island Civil Rights Act (RICRA) and article 1, section 2 of the Rhode Island Constitution. On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the hearing justice erred in determining that her claims under RICRA were precluded by the prior dismissal of the plaintiff's federal Title IX claim. The plaintiff also argued that the hearing justice erred in holding that section 2 of article 1 of the Rhode Island Constitution does not grant the plaintiff a private right of action. The Supreme Court first held that the plaintiff's claims under RICRA were predicated upon the defendants' alleged violations of Title IX, which had already been litigated in federal court. Further, the Supreme Court stated that the resolution of that issue in federal court was essential to the judgment on the merits and, therefore, issue preclusion barred the plaintiff's claim in Superior Court. The Supreme Court also held that the plaintiff's claim that the defendants interfered with her contract with an educational institution was not actionable. Next, the Supreme Court examined the antidiscrimination clause contained in section 2 of article 1 of the Rhode Island Constitution and held that it was not self executing. Further, the Supreme Court held that principles of judicial restraint prevented the Court from creating a private right of action under these circumstances. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court.

Defendant Win

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.