Davis v. Mercy Medical Center, 994 N.W.2d 380

Michael Davis had abnormal blood and urine tests beginning in 2016 (protein, blood, elevated creatinine) and signs consistent with kidney disease; he progressed to kidney failure and received a kidney transplant in 2020.
Between Sept. 15–25, 2017 Dr. David Keene saw Davis but did not order a urinalysis or refer him to a nephrologist; earlier providers had not identified a urological cause.
A March 2018 renal biopsy diagnosed IgA nephropathy; experts agreed IgA nephropathy is treatable and earlier treatment can delay progression.
The Davises sued CHI, Norby, and Dr. Keene for delayed referral/treatment; a jury found Keene negligent and awarded $1,660,000 in damages; the district court added interest and $204,973.31 in costs.
Defendants moved for judgment as a matter of law (N.D.R.Civ.P. 50) on proximate cause and damages; the district court denied the motion.
The Supreme Court affirmed liability and future damages, reduced past economic damages from $400,000 to $386,919.04 (the proven amount), and reversed/remanded the award of costs and disbursements for including unauthorized items and lacking explanation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence was sufficient to submit proximate cause to the jury (JMOL)	Keene’s failure to refer in Sept. 2017 delayed diagnosis/treatment and, per expert, likely delayed kidney failure ~15 years	Evidence was insufficient to show Keene’s omission proximately caused kidney failure/transplant	Denied JMOL; viewed in plaintiffs’ favor, expert testimony created a fact issue supporting proximate cause
Sufficiency of evidence for past economic damages	Past medical bills/supporting documents establish incurred medical expenses (requested $400,000)	Amount unsupported; jury award exceeded documented expenses	Reduced jury award to documented $386,919.04 and remanded for adjustment
Sufficiency of evidence for future economic damages	Life-care plan and expert testimony showed future need (repeat transplant) and provided present-value estimates	Contested but argued speculative	Affirmed: $1,100,000 award is within evidence range and not excessive
Properness and amount of taxed costs/disbursements	Davises sought $204,973.31 in costs; claimed prevailing-party entitlement	Defendants argued Davises not prevailing on all claims and some items not taxable (pro hac vice fees, legal research, unclear medical-record charges)	Reversed and remanded: Davises entitled to taxed disbursements only as prevailing party on Keene; court abused discretion by awarding unauthorized items and failing to explain amounts

Pavlicek v. Am. Steel Sys., Inc., 2019 ND 97, 925 N.W.2d 737 (explaining Rule 50/JMOL standard and appellate review)
Bjorneby v. Nodak Mut. Ins. Co., 2016 ND 142, 882 N.W.2d 232 (JMOL standard; viewing evidence in light most favorable to nonmovant)
Johnson v. Mid Dakota Clinic, P.C., 2015 ND 135, 864 N.W.2d 269 (elements of professional negligence and proximate cause defined)
Condon v. St. Alexius Med. Ctr., 2019 ND 113, 926 N.W.2d 136 (review standard for jury damages verdicts)
Schutt v. Schumacher, 548 N.W.2d 381 (N.D. 1996) (medical expenses admissible without expert tying each to negligence; causation for expenses is for jury)
Anderson v. A.P.I. Co. of Minnesota, 1997 ND 6, 559 N.W.2d 204 (court may reduce jury award when amount exceeds evidentiary support)
Carpenter v. Rohrer, 2006 ND 111, 714 N.W.2d 804 (defining "prevailing party" and standards for taxing disbursements)
Heng v. Rotech Med. Corp., 2006 ND 176, 720 N.W.2d 54 (electronic legal research fees are part of attorney fees and not taxable as costs)