710 S.E.2d 84
S.C. Ct. App.2011Background
- Elise Burke, 73, underwent an abdominal hysterectomy at AnMed Health on March 22, 2005; a cleansing sponge was left inside her vagina during a routine preoperative procedure and was not discovered during the hysterectomy.
- After surgery Burke developed increasing discomfort, discolored vaginal discharge, and a strong odor; she sought medical assistance on six occasions over the next two months.
- On May 23, 2005, a vaginal exam revealed sponge fragments, which were partially removed May 24 and completely removed the following day.
- AnMed admitted liability to Burke and the jury awarded Burke $250,000 in damages.
- During voir dire, AnMed sought to strike jurors indebted to AnMed for cause; the trial court excused four debtors but did not excuse others; AnMed appealed asserting error in the integrated cause analysis.
- AnMed separately challenged admission of the initial hysterectomy costs as evidence of damages; the court admitted the costs, and AnMed did not renew its objection when the evidence was offered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in not excusing indebted jurors for cause | Burke argues debt to AnMed shows bias; requests automatic exclusion | AnMed argues no automatic disqualification; requires individual analysis | No automatic disqualification; trial court did not abuse discretion |
| Admissibility of the initial hysterectomy costs as damages | Burke contends costs are relevant to damages | AnMed argues evidence is irrelevant; should be excluded | Issue not preserved on appeal; waiver governs review |
| Whether the verdict warrants a new trial under thirteenth juror or remittitur | Burke contends damages are excessive given injuries | AnMed argues verdict is excessive and prejudiced | Denial of new trial affirmed; verdict given deference and not shockingly excessive |
| Whether the nurse's testimony about general procedure and sponge location was admissible | Burke argues context for damages supports admission | AnMed asserts potential prejudice and lack of relevance | Court respected discretion; admission not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether the trial court erred in denying a specific jury instruction about original injuries | Burke argues correct proximate cause instruction required | AnMed concedes proximate cause instruction was correct if given | No error; properly refused as substance included in general instructions |
Key Cases Cited
- Abofreka v. Alston Tobacco Co., 288 S.C. 122, 341 S.E.2d 622 (1986) (juror disqualification requires individualized analysis)
- Johnson v. Nat'l Bank of Sumter, 213 S.C. 458, 50 S.E.2d 177 (1948) (questions on fitness to serve lie within trial court discretion)
- State v. Dicapua, 373 S.C. 452, 646 S.E.2d 150 (Ct.App.2007) (no objection to evidence waived issue preservation)
- Becker v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 339 S.C. 629, 529 S.E.2d 758 (2000) (new trial absolute and remittitur standards; deference to verdicts)
- O'Neal v. Bowles, 314 S.C. 525, 431 S.E.2d 555 (1993) (limits on the thirteenth juror doctrine and harsh standards for new trials)