538 S.W.3d 518
Tenn. Ct. App.2017Background
- Christy Bradley underwent repeated treatments for uterine fibroids and elected a laparoscopic robotic hysterectomy with Dr. Laura Bishop on December 26, 2012; Dr. Bishop converted to an open procedure after noting a superficial colon cut.
- Postoperatively Bradley deteriorated; on December 29 a general surgeon found abdominal contamination and a through‑and‑through small bowel injury requiring enterectomy and anastomosis; Bradley spent ~3 weeks hospitalized and alleged long‑term sequelae.
- Bradley and her husband sued Dr. Bishop and the Ruch Clinic for health care liability, alleging negligent bowel injury and vicarious liability; trial by jury returned a verdict for defendants that Dr. Bishop did not deviate from the standard of care.
- Before trial the court granted two motions in limine for defendants: (1) exclude references to a “best possible care” standard (because Tennessee law uses an objective ordinary‑care standard), and (2) limit proof of medical expenses to amounts actually paid.
- Plaintiffs moved for a new trial arguing (a) the in limine rulings improperly limited cross‑examination of defendants’ expert about “best possible care,” (b) the court failed to give plaintiffs’ proposed curative instruction after defendants’ opening statement, (c) the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, and (d) limits on proving medical expenses. The trial court denied the new trial and affirmed the verdict as thirteenth juror; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of "best possible care" testimony | Bradley: should be allowed to cross‑examine defense expert (Stovall) about reliance on "best possible care" since he referenced it in deposition. | Bishop: Tennessee law defines objective standard (reasonable and prudent in community); "best possible care" is not the legal standard and would confuse jury. | Court: Affirmed exclusion; trial court didn’t abuse discretion—"best possible care" is subjective, not the statutory standard, and would mislead jury. |
| Request for curative instruction after opening statement (St. Jude analogy) | Bradley: Opening statement compared Bishop to St. Jude doctors; requested specific curative instruction to remove prejudicial effect. | Bishop: Opening comments were argument, not evidence; general jury instruction that opening statements are not evidence suffices. | Court: Denied claim; general curative instruction was adequate and plaintiffs failed to move for mistrial or show prejudice. |
| Verdict contrary to weight of evidence / trial court as thirteenth juror | Bradley: Evidence showed deviations (wrong approach, trocar placement, failure to inspect bowel); trial court should grant new trial. | Bishop: Substantial expert testimony supported that care met standard; jury credibility findings govern. | Court: Affirmed — trial court properly acted as thirteenth juror and material evidence supports verdict; appellate court may not reweigh. |
| Limitation on proof of medical expenses | Bradley: Exclusion of amounts billed but not paid improperly limited damages proof. | Bishop: Ruling re: expenses was permissible and, in any event, no need to decide because verdict for defendants. | Court: Pretermitted—issue not reached because liability verdict favored defendants. |
Key Cases Cited
- White v. Beeks, 469 S.W.3d 517 (Tenn. 2015) (limits on expert testimony can implicate informed consent analysis; excluded testimony may be reversible if it affects a dispositive issue)
- Ashe v. Radiation Oncology Assocs., 9 S.W.3d 119 (Tenn. 1999) (subjective standards based on witness credibility are disfavored in malpractice law)
- Richardson v. Miller, 44 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000) (health care liability requires objective community standard, not presumption of negligence from unsuccessful treatment)
- Creech v. Addington, 281 S.W.3d 363 (Tenn. 2009) (appellate standard: set aside jury findings only if no material evidence supports the verdict)
- Meals ex rel. Meals v. Ford Motor Co., 417 S.W.3d 414 (Tenn. 2013) (explains material evidence review and deference to jury verdict)