Commercial Bank & Trust Company v. Children's Anesthesiologists, P.C.
545 S.W.3d 470
| Tenn. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Albert P. Mjekiqi, who previously had a hemispherectomy and a ventricular shunt, underwent a shunt revision in May 2011 at East Tennessee Children’s Hospital; after surgery he became non-ambulatory and wheelchair-bound.
- Plaintiffs (Albert’s legal guardian, his parents, and intervening Volunteer State Health Plan) sued healthcare providers alleging medical negligence in the shunt revision procedure.
- At trial plaintiffs nonsuited several defendants; the jury deliberated on potential liability of Children’s Anesthesiologists, P.C. and Neurosurgical Associates, P.C. and returned a verdict for defendants.
- The trial court entered judgment on the jury verdict and denied plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial; plaintiffs appealed raising evidentiary and jury-instruction issues.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, rejecting challenges regarding: cross-examination implying the parents were refugees; exclusion of a handwritten “standard of care” exhibit from the jury room; alleged failure of defendants to present standard-of-care evidence; and the inclusion of an “error in judgment” jury instruction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether cross-examination implying parents were refugees was improper | Such testimony was prejudicial and should have been excluded | No timely objection was made at trial; evidence was admissible when asked | Waived on appeal for lack of timely objection; no relief granted |
| Whether Exhibit 102 (handwritten “standard of care” statement) should go to jury room | Exhibit should be admitted and sent to jury as a definition of standard of care | It was cumulative of testimony and could mislead jury; trial court excluded it from jury room | Plaintiffs waived appellate review by not objecting; exclusion was within trial court discretion and harmless at most |
| Whether trial court should have granted new trial because defendants failed to present standard-of-care evidence | Plaintiffs argued defendants bore burden to prove standard of care and they failed to do so | Defendants noted plaintiff bears burden to prove standard of care and defense experts testified defendant met it | Denied: plaintiff has burden to prove standard of care; defense experts supported verdict; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether giving an "error in judgment" instruction was reversible error | Plaintiffs argued no evidence supported an "error in judgment" defense so instruction was improper | Instruction was the standard TPI pattern; it properly informed jury that an unsuccessful result or judgment error alone is not negligence unless due to lack of required knowledge/care/skill | Affirmed: instruction read in context was correct and applicable to disputed decisions during surgery |
Key Cases Cited
- Whaley v. Perkins, 197 S.W.3d 665 (Tenn. 2006) (standard for appellate review of jury findings)
- Barnes v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 48 S.W.3d 698 (Tenn. 2000) (guidance on viewing evidence in favor of verdict)
- Grandstaff v. Hawks, 36 S.W.3d 482 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000) (timely and specific objections required to preserve evidentiary issues)
- DeLapp v. Pratt, 152 S.W.3d 530 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004) (abuse of discretion standard for admission of evidence)
- Mabon v. Jackson-Madison County Gen. Hosp., 968 S.W.2d 826 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997) (plaintiff bears burden to prove recognized standard of care)
- Goodale v. Langenberg, 243 S.W.3d 575 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007) (requirements for jury instructions to be plain, correct, and reflect parties’ theories)