Background
Gary J. Ricci, proceeding without counsel, brought a negligence action against Annette Gaiotti and Donald Goldberg in the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit (Maui), alleging that he suffered a left-eye injury when a rock struck him while using a weed whacker at the defendants’ property. Ricci claimed loss of vision, difficulty focusing, tear duct issues, and depression about his future vision. His left eye was his only working eye.
Defendants moved for partial summary judgment on medical causation, arguing that Ricci could not prove his eye deficits were caused by the weed-whacker incident rather than pre-existing conditions. The record showed Ricci had scratched the same eye on an agave plant one month before the incident, had pre-existing cataracts, and that a post-incident provider found no foreign body in the eye. The expert disclosure deadline had passed, and Ricci had not produced any medical expert report on causation. His sole disclosed expert—a clinical psychologist—addressed psychological harm but offered no opinion on eye-injury causation.
Ricci opposed the motion with unauthenticated medical records and arguments that he intended to present expert testimony at trial, but he provided no expert report. The Circuit Court granted summary judgment for defendants.
The Court’s Holding
The ICA affirmed. The court held that while expert medical testimony is generally not required in ordinary negligence cases (Bernard v. Char, 79 Hawai’i 371 (App. 1995)), and is always required in medical malpractice actions (Estate of Frey v. Mastroianni, 146 Hawai’i 540 (2020)), this case fell in between. Because Ricci’s pre-existing eye conditions and prior injury to the same eye meant the causal link was “not within the realm of common knowledge or ordinary experience,” expert testimony was necessary to establish that the weed-whacker incident—rather than these other causes—produced his eye deficits.
The court further held that Ricci’s unauthenticated medical records were inadmissible hearsay and could not create a genuine issue of material fact. His claim that he was “denied” an expert was contradicted by the record showing he had 21 months to disclose experts and failed to do so. The defendants properly relied on Ricci’s own interrogatory responses and deposition testimony—admissible evidence—to support their motion.
Key Takeaways
- In Hawaii negligence cases involving pre-existing medical conditions, expert medical testimony on causation may be required even outside the medical malpractice context—the key question is whether the causal link is “within the realm of common knowledge.”
- Unauthenticated medical records submitted without a proper custodian declaration cannot defeat summary judgment, even for self-represented litigants.
- A plaintiff who fails to disclose expert witnesses by the court-ordered deadline cannot rely on promises of future expert testimony to oppose summary judgment on an element requiring expert proof.
Why It Matters
For Hawaii personal injury practitioners, Ricci clarifies when expert causation testimony crosses from optional to mandatory in garden-variety negligence claims. The decision establishes that when a plaintiff’s injury history involves pre-existing conditions affecting the same body part, courts will treat medical causation as beyond common knowledge—even though the case is not a malpractice action. Plaintiffs’ attorneys should identify and disclose causation experts early whenever competing causes exist, and should not assume that the “ordinary negligence” exception to expert testimony requirements will apply when the injury picture is medically complex.