Quirion v. Forcier
632 A.2d 365, 1993 Vt. LEXIS 86, 161 Vt. 15 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Vermont Rule of Evidence 408, evidence of a settlement with other parties, while generally inadmissible to prove liability, may be admitted for other purposes, such as proving the bias or prejudice of a witness, if its probative value is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice under Rule 403.
Facts:
- Peter Quirion complained of chest pains for several years and was treated by three Newport-area doctors, Dr. Holcomb, Dr. Beloin, and Dr. Feltmarch.
- Dissatisfied with his care, Quirion consulted with Dr. R. Jackson Forcier on October 3, 1985, for a one-hour examination.
- During the examination, Quirion failed to disclose his regular marijuana use to Dr. Forcier.
- Following the visit, Dr. Forcier sent letters to Quirion and his primary physician, Dr. Holcomb, stating his belief that the chest pain was not related to coronary artery disease and might be caused by anxiety or reflux esophagitis.
- A little over one month after seeing Dr. Forcier, Peter Quirion died of a heart attack.
- An autopsy revealed that Quirion's death was caused by a blockage of his coronary arteries.
Procedural Posture:
- Sandra Quirion, on behalf of her deceased husband's estate, sued Dr. Forcier, the Hitchcock Clinic, and three other doctors in the Orleans Superior Court (trial court) for medical malpractice.
- During discovery, plaintiff's expert, Dr. Markowitz, was deposed by counsel for all defendants.
- Following the deposition, Quirion settled her claims against the three other doctors.
- A second, videotaped deposition of Dr. Markowitz was later conducted for use at trial.
- Quirion filed motions in limine to exclude evidence of her settlement, the other doctors' negligence, and her husband's marijuana use.
- The trial court denied the motions.
- After a trial on the merits, the jury returned a verdict for the remaining defendants, Dr. Forcier and the Hitchcock Clinic.
- Quirion appealed the trial court's adverse evidentiary rulings to the Supreme Court of Vermont.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Vermont Rule of Evidence 408 permit the admission of a plaintiff's settlement with other defendants to impeach the credibility of the plaintiff's expert witness by showing the settlement as a potential motive for the witness to change their testimony?
Opinions:
Majority - Dooley, J.
Yes. Evidence of a settlement is admissible under Vermont Rule of Evidence 408 for a purpose other than proving liability, such as to prove the bias or prejudice of a witness. The court reasoned that while its prior holding in Slayton v. Ford Motor Co. generally prohibited informing a jury of a settlement, the adoption of V.R.E. 408 created a specific exception. Here, the defendants argued that the plaintiff's expert witness, Dr. Markowitz, changed his testimony from largely blaming the Newport-area doctors to blaming Dr. Forcier after learning the plaintiff had settled with those doctors. The settlement evidence was therefore highly probative of the expert's potential bias and credibility. The court then applied the V.R.E. 403 balancing test, concluding that the probative value of the evidence was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, especially since the jury was given a clear limiting instruction and was not informed of the settlement amount. The court similarly found that evidence of the other doctors' potential negligence and the decedent's marijuana use was admissible under Rule 403 because it was relevant to the defense's theories of impeachment and contributory negligence, respectively.
Analysis:
This case clarifies that the general prohibition against admitting settlement evidence is not absolute and is subject to the exceptions outlined in V.R.E. 408, particularly for impeaching a witness. The decision reinforces the trial court's broad discretion under V.R.E. 403 to balance the probative value of potentially prejudicial evidence against its harmful effects. It establishes that a settlement with one party can be used strategically by a remaining defendant to challenge the credibility of an opponent's expert witness, especially if there is a colorable claim that the witness's opinion shifted after the settlement. This impacts litigation strategy, as parties must consider how a partial settlement might be used as an evidentiary weapon in a subsequent trial.
