15 results for 'cat:"Jury" AND cat:"Medical Malpractice"'.
J. Harris finds that the lower court properly found for the doctor in a medical malpractice suit stemming from internal bleeding caused by a gastric band removal and hernia repair surgery. The court reasonably declined to exclude the doctor's medical expert's testimony, especially as the patient did not object to the challenged testimony at the time it was offered at trial. Further, the jury was correctly instructed on the patient's damages due to the doctor's alleged negligence. Affirmed.
Court: Illinois Appellate Court, Judge: Harris, Filed On: May 16, 2024, Case #: 230742, Categories: jury, Experts, medical Malpractice
J. Mann finds the lower court improperly refused to submit a jury instruction supporting the hospital's theory of the case. A test conducted at an emergency room showed a patient's blood sodium level to be low. Still, the doctor missed the abnormality and sent the patient home with instructions to see her family doctor and a gastroenterologist for abdominal pain. Two weeks later, the patient collapsed and suffered a head wound. The patient successfully sued the hospital and doctor for failure to diagnose her with low blood sodium levels. The defense offered superseding-cause instructions and also one telling the jurors that if the injuries could have resulted from multiple possible causes, at least one of which wasn’t the doctor’s fault, and they couldn’t ascertain which one was the cause, they had to return a defense verdict. The offered instruction was a correct statement of the law and was supported by more than a scintilla of evidence. Reversed.
Court: Virginia Supreme Court, Judge: Mann, Filed On: April 4, 2024, Case #: 230199 , Categories: jury, Due Process, medical Malpractice
J. Hyman finds that the lower court properly found the doctor guilty of medical malpractice by failing to properly intubate a patient, causing permanent brain damage. The court correctly instructed the jury that it needed to unanimously find the doctor was negligent, but did not need to be unanimous as to which one of his acts constituted the negligence. Affirmed.
Court: Illinois Appellate Court, Judge: Hyman, Filed On: March 8, 2024, Case #: 230134, Categories: jury, medical Malpractice
J. Hagen holds that the trial court properly instructed the jury on the patient's loved one's burden to prove the standard of care for a medical malpractice claim. However, insufficient evidence of pain, suffering or inconvenience supported a damages award on a survival claim. Reversed in part.
Court: Utah Supreme Court, Judge: Hagen, Filed On: February 15, 2024, Case #: 20220815, Categories: jury, Damages, medical Malpractice
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Atkins upholds the trial court’s dismissal of the patient’s motion to review an unfavorable jury verdict and a motion for a new trial in a medical malpractice case, confirming the jury’s finding that the patient’s primary care physician did not breach the standard of care when he failed to refer the patient to the emergency room after he was admitted with symptoms of cardiac arrest. The verdict was based on fair interpretation of the evidence and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial. Affirmed.
Court: Louisiana Court Of Appeal, Judge: Atkins, Filed On: December 28, 2023, Case #: 23-CA-0215, Categories: jury, medical Malpractice
J. Lipinski finds the trial court properly lifted the Health Care Availability Act's $1 million cap on damages in the medical malpractice action and entered the jury's award of over $39 million. The child's permanent neurological injuries, including cerebral palsy, will require lifetime medical care, while the $1 million cap would not even have covered the family's past medical expenses. Although the court misinterpreted the law and determined it was required to either impose the cap or enter the jury award, its analysis of the damages calculations conducted by the jury satisfied statutory requirements and supported the damages award. Affirmed.
Court: Colorado Court Of Appeals, Judge: Lipinsky, Filed On: November 16, 2023, Case #: 2023COA108, Categories: jury, Damages, medical Malpractice
J. Gustafson finds that the trial court erred in refusing to provide the jury instructions requested by a patient who claimed that treatment delays caused his blindness. A proportionate duty instruction is not always applicable in a medical malpractice case but it was foreseeable that timely treatment of the high pressure that doctors knew existed in the patient's skull could have saved his sight. A loss of chance instruction was needed so the jury could consider causation separately from its negligence determination. Also, where a trial court is asked to conduct a juror poll, each juror must be asked about that individual juror's verdict, not the jury's collective verdict. Reversed.
Court: Montana Supreme Court, Judge: Gustafson, Filed On: September 19, 2023, Case #: DA 22-0123, Categories: jury, medical Malpractice
J. Wormuth denies the patient's motion for a new trial, ruling questioning by the dentist's attorney about the patient's sexual assaults, which resulted in his present disability, conformed with this court's limiting instruction and did not unfairly influence the jury. Meanwhile, evidence about the patient's smoking history was not prejudicial because it was contained in numerous medical records admitted without objection, while he could also have testified about whether he smoked immediately after the dental implant surgery.
Court: USDC New Mexico, Judge: Wormuth, Filed On: September 13, 2023, Case #: 1:21cv492, NOS: Personal Injury - Medical Malpractice - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: Evidence, jury, medical Malpractice
J. McFadden finds that the trial court properly denied the widow's motion to exclude prospective jurors from the venire who had not been vaccinated against Covid-19 in a medical malpractice action arising from her husband's death. The widow failed to show how the denial of the motion harmed her. The trial court also correctly refused to allow the widow to question jurors about their vaccination status. The widow could have asked more general questions to determine the prospective jurors' beliefs in science. Affirmed.
Court: Georgia Court of Appeals, Judge: McFadden, Filed On: September 12, 2023, Case #: A23A1039, Categories: jury, medical Malpractice, Covid-19
J. Welbaum finds that the trial court improperly denied the estate administrator's motion for a new trial for the medical malpractice and wrongful death complaint, which alleges that the home health care service's medical treatment to decedent caused his death. The trial court improperly gave instructions disqualifying jurors from further participation in deliberation. "The fault was in prohibiting the full jury from considering both negligence and proximate cause, and that deprivation was not harmless because it involved the right to have a full jury deliberate the case." Reversed in part.
Court: Ohio Court Of Appeals, Judge: Welbaum, Filed On: July 14, 2023, Case #: 29652, Categories: jury, Wrongful Death, medical Malpractice
[Consolidated.] J. Steigmann finds that the lower court properly instructed the jury on the issue of disfigurement in this medical negligence suit stemming from a woman's seven-year coma and eventual death following gastric bypass surgery. However, the court erred by reducing the estate's judgment because medical expenses that have been written off by health care providers do not qualify for reduction. Reversed in part.
Court: Illinois Appellate Court, Judge: Steigmann, Filed On: July 14, 2023, Case #: 220643, Categories: jury, Damages, medical Malpractice
J. Mitchell finds that the lower court properly awarded the patient $6.5 million in a medical negligence case stemming from its failure to diagnose her breast cancer. The trial court did not err in precluding defense counsel from using the word "unrebutted" in arguments to the jury regarding certain evidence, and did not incorrectly instruct the jury on the negligence claim. Affirmed.
Court: Illinois Appellate Court, Judge: Mitchell, Filed On: June 9, 2023, Case #: 220788, Categories: jury, medical Malpractice
J. Christiansen Forster finds that the jury received potentially confusing instructions before it determined that a doctor did not breach his duty to obtain a patient's informed consent about the risks posed by an antibiotic he prescribed. The consent instruction given by the trial court was inadequate for jurors to establish that the patient's consent to receiving the drug was informed, and the doctor's repeated references to a "consent form" the patient had signed made it likely the jury was confused. Vacated.
Court: Utah Court Of Appeals, Judge: Christiansen Forster, Filed On: June 8, 2023, Case #: 20220027-CA, Categories: jury, medical Malpractice