NHCaseLaw.com

HICKS, J. The plaintiff, Estate of Marcus R. Sicotte (the Estate), appeals an order of the Superior Court (Houran, J.) dismissing its legal malpractice case against the defendant law firm, Lubin & Meyer, P.C. (L&M). We affirm.

This is a medical malpractice action brought by the plaintiffs, Philip J. ("Philip") and Catherine ("Catherine") Sica, against the defendants, John C. Britton, M.D. ("Dr. Britton") anal Surgical Associates of Rochester, P.C. The plaintiffs allege Dr. Britton negligently performed a surgery on Philip, causing injuries and losses to Philip and loss of consortium to Catherine. The defendants now move in limine to preclude the plaintiffs from introducing medical expenses written off by Philip's medical care providers. The plaintiffs object. Neither party has requested a hearing on this motion in limine, nor does the court find that a hearing would assist it in determining the pending issue. Accordingly, pursuant to Superior Court Rule 58, the court acts on the pending motion on the basis of the pleadings and record before it.

The defendant, Cheshire Medical Center ("Cheshire") moves for summary judgment as to Counts I and III of the plaintiff, Anthony Eno's ("Eno"), medical malpractice claim. Eno objects to Cheshire's motion. For the reasons that follow, Cheshire's motion for summary judgment is DENIED.

The plaintiffs seek production of credentialing committee records regarding Dr. Day "to determine more precisely what the hospital had done to assure the competency of Dr. Day to perform stress tests before she was hired." See Plt. Motion at p. 5. The request is limited to documents produced before Dr. Day was hired. In addition, the plaintiffs seek an order requiring the hospital's executive director to answer specific questions related to Dr. Day's qualifications to perform stress tests. The defendants object arguing that the documents and related questions are protected from disclosure pursuant to RSA 151:13-a. After a review of the pleadings, related case law and exhibits attached to each pleading, the court grants the plaintiffs' requests.

This is a medical negligence action arising out of allegedly substandard care and treatment received by plaintiff’s decedent, Craig Hieber, at the emergency department of Catholic Medical Center (CMC) on July 18, 2002. In addition to the claim for negligent treatment of Mr. Hieber, the decedent’s wife, plaintiff Sherry Hieber, also seeks to recover in her own right and on behalf of her children for severe emotional harm manifested by physical symptoms sustained by them as a result of witnessing the negligent treatment provided to Mr. Hieber. Presently before the court is defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Produce Properly Executed Releases for the Plaintiffs’ Medical Records. Although I agree with plaintiff that, at this point, dismissal is not an appropriate remedy, I also find that plaintiff must execute the releases sought by defendants.

On May 5, 1997, the court held a hearing on defendants' motion to dismiss count IV of plaintiffs' writ. Defendants claim that plaintiff Dawn Brauel may not recover for negligent seriously injured and immediately observe the child at the accident scene" are entitled to recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress. Corso, 119 N.H. at 649, 659. The Court permitted recovery even though the parents did not witness the crash itself.