Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Appeal in Wynne v. McKinley centers on alleged trial 'ambush' and whether it warrants a new trial
Summary
In Wynne v. McKinley, appellant counsel argues a late, trial‑day change in the defendant surgeon’s testimony amounted to an orchestrated 'ambush' that deprived the plaintiff of a fair trial and warrants Rule 59 relief; defense counsel and the district court viewed the change as met and mitigated through impeachment and trial strategy.
A Utah Court of Appeals panel heard arguments in Wynne v. McKinley over whether a post‑trial motion for a new trial should have been granted after a multi‑day medical‑malpractice trial. Appellant counsel Todd Wolfus told the panel the trial record shows a late change in Dr. McKinley’s testimony that was effectively an "ambush" and that the resulting prejudice could not be cured by impeachment alone.
Wolfus described the factual core of the case: patient Holly Wynne took a pulmonologist’s pre‑surgery recommendation to Dr. McKinley, and after surgery Wynne suffered a pulmonary embolism and brain injury. Wolfus said McKinley’s…
Already have an account? Log in
Subscribe to keep reading
Unlock the rest of this article — and every article on Citizen Portal.
- Unlimited articles
- AI-powered breakdowns of topics, speakers, decisions, and budgets
- Instant alerts when your location has a new meeting
- Follow topics and more locations
- 1,000 AI Insights / month, plus AI Chat
