Donna Marie Conner v. Elliot Hospital & a. ( 2016 )

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
SUPREME COURT
In Case No. 2016-0298, Donna Marie Conner v. Elliot
Hospital & a., the court on December 22, 2016, issued the
following order:
Having considered the plaintiff’s brief and reply memoranda, the
defendants’ memoranda of law, and the record submitted on appeal, we
conclude that oral argument is unnecessary in this case. See Sup. Ct. R. 18(1).
We affirm.
The plaintiff, Donna Marie Conner, appeals orders of the Superior Court
(Ruoff and Nicolosi, JJ.) dismissing her claims against defendant Elliot Hospital
for failure to disclose an expert witness, and against defendant Catholic
Medical Center for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Expert testimony is required when the subject of the plaintiff’s claim is
beyond the competence of the average layperson. See Estate of Sicotte v. Lubin
& Meyer, 157 N.H. 670, 673 (2008). This rule includes claims alleging failure
to comply with a medical standard of care. See RSA 507-E:2 (2010); Smith v.
HCA Health Servs. of N.H., 159 N.H. 158, 161-62 (2009). The content and
timing of pretrial disclosures of expert testimony are governed by RSA 516:29-b
(Supp. 2016) and any pretrial discovery orders entered by the trial court. We
review a trial court’s decision to dismiss an action for a plaintiff’s failure to
timely or properly disclose expert testimony for an unsustainable exercise of
discretion. Estate of Sicotte, 157 N.H. at 673.
In reviewing an order granting a motion to dismiss for failure to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted, we consider whether the factual
allegations in the plaintiff’s pleadings are reasonably susceptible of a
construction that would permit recovery. Riso v. Dwyer, 168 N.H. 652, 654
(2016). We assume the plaintiff’s well-pleaded factual allegations to be true,
and construe all reasonable inferences from such allegations in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff. Id. We then engage in a threshold inquiry that tests
the well-pleaded facts against the applicable law, and if such facts do not
constitute a basis for legal relief, we will affirm the trial court’s dismissal. Id.It is the burden of the appealing party, here the plaintiff, to demonstrate
reversible error on appeal. Gallo v. Traina, 166 N.H. 737, 740 (2014). Issues
raised on appeal without developed legal argument are waived. State v.
Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49 (2003). In New Hampshire, the rules of procedure,
both in the trial court and on appeal, are not relaxed merely because a party is
self-represented. See In the Matter of Birmingham & Birmingham, 154 N.H.
51, 56 (2006); Simpson v. Young, 153 N.H. 471, 473 (2006).
In this case, we have reviewed the portions of the trial court record
provided on appeal, including the trial court’s orders dismissing the plaintiff’s
claims and the papers submitted in the trial court relative to those decisions,
and the plaintiff’s arguments challenging those decisions on appeal. We
conclude that the plaintiff has failed to demonstrate, through developed legal
argument, why the trial court erred by dismissing her claims. Any further
arguments raised by the plaintiff are either insufficiently developed, see
Blackmer, 149 N.H. at 49, or otherwise do not warrant further consideration,
see Vogel v. Vogel, 137 N.H. 321, 322 (1993).
Under the circumstances, the plaintiff’s “PLEA FOR RELIEF BASED
UPON THE CONSTITUTION FOR NEW HAMPSHIRE RULE OF PROMPTNESS,
[Art.] 14. [Legal Remedies to be Free, Complete, and Prompt.],” in which she
requests that we “decide [her] matter without further delay,” is moot.
Affirmed.
Dalianis, C.J., and Conboy and Lynn, JJ., concurred.
Eileen Fox,
Clerk
2