David Pitts Jr. and Kenyetta Gurley v. Louisiana Medical Mutual Insurance Company and Rhoda Renee Jones, M.D., 2017 La. LEXIS 544

Background

Seven-month-old Lyric Pitts presented to a rural ER with vomiting, wheezing, lethargy, and high heart rates; she was examined by Dr. Rhoda Jones, treated for asthma/possible pneumonia, admitted for observation, then deteriorated and died; autopsy showed myocarditis.
Medical Review Panel (MRP) unanimously found Dr. Jones breached the standard of care by failing to recognize a “sick baby” and transfer her to a higher-level facility, but could not determine causation.
Plaintiffs sued for medical malpractice; at jury trial the jury found Dr. Jones complied with the standard of care (9–3 verdict), so causation and damages were not reached.
Trial court granted plaintiffs’ JNOV (and conditionally a new trial), finding the jury was confused and the verdict contrary to law and evidence; the court of appeal reversed, reinstating the jury verdict and vacating the new trial.
Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeal’s reversal of the JNOV (holding the JNOV standard is rigorous and conflicting expert testimony supported the jury), but reversed the court of appeal on the new-trial issue and reinstated the district court’s grant of a new trial (finding no abuse of discretion in granting a new trial based on the trial court’s credibility assessment and view that the verdict appeared contrary to the evidence).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether JNOV was properly granted	Jury verdict was unreasonable given MRP and experts showing Dr. Jones breached standard (failed to recognize/transfer a sick infant)	Conflicting expert testimony provided a reasonable basis for jury to find no breach	JNOV was improperly granted; appellate court reversal affirmed (JNOV standard: facts/inferences must overwhelmingly favor one party)
Whether a new trial should be conditionally granted	Verdict was clearly contrary to law/evidence and jury was confused; new trial warranted (Art. 1972(1) and Art. 1973)	Jury verdict was supportable by fair interpretation of conflicting expert evidence; new trial was improper	District court’s conditional grant of a new trial was reinstated—no abuse of discretion (trial court can weigh evidence and credibility on new-trial motion)
Proper standard for JNOV vs. new trial	N/A — plaintiffs relied on trial court to apply appropriate standards	N/A — defense stressed the higher JNOV standard and deference to jury	Court reiterated Scott/Joseph JNOV standard (very rigorous) and that new-trial review is more deferential to trial court’s factual/credibility assessments
Whether conflicting expert testimony can support a jury verdict for defendant	MRP and plaintiffs’ experts said breach; jury nonetheless could be right if defense experts were credible	Defense experts offered alternative reasonable interpretations (no basis for transfer; vitals could be normal)	Conflicting expert testimony meant reasonable persons could differ; such conflict defeats JNOV but does not preclude trial court from granting a new trial after weighing credibility under Art. 1972/1973

Key Cases Cited

Scott v. Hospital Serv. Dist. No. 1, 496 So.2d 270 (La. 1986) (articulates rigorous JNOV standard)
Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, Inc., 772 So.2d 94 (La. 2000) (explains JNOV criteria and standard)
VaSalle v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 801 So.2d 331 (La. 2001) (appellate review standard for JNOV)
Martin v. Heritage Manor South Nursing Home, 784 So.2d 627 (La. 2001) (distinguishes new-trial standard from JNOV; trial court may weigh credibility)
Horton v. Mayeaux, 931 So.2d 338 (La. 2006) (discusses trial court discretion under Art. 1973 to grant new trial)
Lamb v. Lamb, 430 So.2d 51 (La. 1983) (trial court discretion on new trial; appellate review for abuse)
Davis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 774 So.2d 84 (La. 2000) (trial court may evaluate witness credibility on new-trial motion)
Wood v. Humphries, 103 So.3d 1105 (La. App. 2012) (JNOV as procedural device under La. C.C.P. art. 1811)