By: Derek Hawkins//August 5, 2015//
Civil
WI Court of Appeals – District IV
Officials: Higginbotham, Sherman and Kloppenburg, JJ
Expert Testimony – Daubert Test – Golden Rule
2014AP195 Braylon Seifert v. Kay M. Balink, M.D.
Where alleged prejudicial statements made during closing arguments not held as grounds for a new trial.
“We conclude that the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion when it denied Dr. Balink’s motion for a new trial based on the “Golden Rule”-type statements at issue. First, these statements are not pure violations of the “Golden Rule” because counsel did not explicitly ask the jury to place themselves in the plaintiffs’ shoes. Second, even if we considered these statements to violate the “Golden Rule,” the court provided a curative instruction to the jury that communicated to them that they should not rely on these types of statements. Finally, these statements referred to the issue of gestational diabetes testing, which formed only a portion of the argument made to the jury on prenatal care and informed consent. Taken in light of the entire argument presented to the jury, these statements did not affirmatively prejudice Dr. Balink. In sum, we conclude that the court properly exercised its discretion in denying Dr. Balink’s “Golden Rule” objections.”
Decision
Affirmed – Recommended for Publication