Tarek H. Elgabri, M.D. v. Mary D. Lekas, M.D.
964 F.2d 1255 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An appellate court reviews jury instructions for plain error, not reversible error, if the appellant fails to distinctly object before the jury retires, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 51. Trial courts possess broad discretion under Federal Rules of Evidence 611(a), 403, and 803(6) to manage witness examination and admit or exclude evidence, with such rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion.
Facts:
- Dr. Tarek H. Elgabri, an otolaryngologist, began his residency at the University of Minnesota but was terminated for cause after his first year.
- Dr. Elgabri completed his residency at Rhode Island Hospital and subsequently opened his own practice in Rhode Island in 1984.
- Dr. Elgabri applied for privileges at various Rhode Island hospitals, successfully obtaining them at Notre Dame, Cranston, Kent County Memorial, and Memorial Hospitals, but was repeatedly denied privileges at Miriam, Roger Williams, Rhode Island, and St. Joseph Hospitals.
- Dr. Elgabri believed six named defendant doctors (Dr. Mary Lekas, Dr. Steven Issenberg, Dr. Hani Zaki, Dr. Mendell Duva, Dr. Mendell Robinson, and Dr. Wexler), who were affiliated with the hospitals denying him privileges, were conspiring against him.
- Dr. Elgabri alleged these defendants violated state and federal antitrust laws (Sherman Act §§ 1 & 2) by engaging in a group boycott, conspiring to monopolize ENT services, and denying him essential hospital facilities, and also claimed tortious interference with his prospective business relationships.
Procedural Posture:
- On November 9, 1989, Dr. Elgabri brought suit in district court against six doctors, alleging various violations of state and federal antitrust laws and a common law claim of tortious interference with prospective business relationships.
- During the nineteen-day jury trial, the case against defendant Dr. Wexler was dismissed with prejudice after day twelve.
- On May 29, 1991, the jury found in favor of the remaining defendants on all counts.
- Dr. Elgabri appealed the jury's verdict and the district court's rulings to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, challenging the jury instructions, the order of examination of witnesses, and various evidentiary rulings.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
May an appellate court review a trial court's jury instructions for reversible error if the party failed to object distinctly before the jury retired, and did the trial court abuse its discretion under the Federal Rules of Evidence by controlling the mode of witness examination or by excluding evidence for lack of relevance, prejudice, or proper authentication, thereby warranting reversal?
Opinions:
Majority - STAHL, District Judge
No, the district court did not err in a way that warrants reversal because Dr. Elgabri failed to properly preserve objections to jury instructions and the trial court did not abuse its broad discretion in controlling witness examination or making evidentiary rulings. The court emphasized that Fed. R. Civ. P. 51 requires objections to jury instructions to be stated distinctly and made before the jury retires to consider its verdict; failure to do so constitutes a waiver, limiting appellate review to plain error. The court found no "clear miscarriage of justice" to meet the high bar for plain error review for the challenged jury instructions. Regarding the order of witness examination, the court held that trial courts have wide discretion under Fed. R. Evid. 611(a) to control the presentation of evidence to ensure effectiveness and avoid needless time consumption. Fed. R. Evid. 611(c) merely allows leading questions for adverse parties but does not grant an "unfettered right" to call them during a party's case-in-chief, and no abuse of discretion was found. Finally, the court found no abuse of discretion in the evidentiary rulings: the exclusion of evidence under Fed. R. Evid. 403 was proper as it was marginally relevant and risked confusing the issues, and the exclusion of documents under Fed. R. Evid. 803(6) (business records exception to hearsay) was justified because Dr. Elgabri failed to provide testimony from a custodian or other qualified witness for authentication. An argument regarding the admission of testimony from a prior Minnesota case was deemed waived due to perfunctory presentation on appeal.
Analysis:
This case strongly reinforces the critical importance for trial attorneys of strict adherence to procedural rules, particularly Fed. R. Civ. P. 51, for preserving issues for appellate review, establishing a high bar for plain error review when objections are not timely and distinctly made. It also solidifies the significant deference appellate courts grant to trial judges' broad discretion in managing trials, including controlling witness testimony and making evidentiary rulings under Federal Rules of Evidence 611(a), 403, and 803(6). The ruling serves as a stark reminder that appellate review is not a substitute for proper trial procedure and that perfunctory appellate arguments risk waiver of claims.
