Desert Palm Surgical Group, P.L.C. v. Petta
236 Ariz. 568
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Plaintiffs (Desert Palm Surgical Group and two doctors) performed cosmetic procedures on defendant Petta; she was dissatisfied and filed multiple complaints with medical boards and posted critical statements online.
- Plaintiffs sued Petta for defamation, false light, business disparagement, and tortious interference; Petta counterclaimed for medical battery.
- The superior court granted summary judgment for Plaintiffs on the battery counterclaim and granted partial summary judgment dismissing Plaintiffs’ disparagement and interference claims; defamation and false light claims went to trial.
- A jury returned a verdict awarding Plaintiffs ~$11 million in compensatory damages and $1 million punitive damages; the trial court entered an amended judgment for $12,009,489.96.
- Petta appealed; the appellate court affirmed denial of her motions for judgment as a matter of law, vacated and remanded the judgment because compensatory damages were unsupported and shocking, and reversed summary judgment on Petta’s medical-battery counterclaim (remanding it for trial).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appellate jurisdiction over appeal | N/A — plaintiffs argued appeal defective | Petta’s notice sufficiently identified judgment; any defect did not prejudice plaintiffs | Court exercised jurisdiction; appeal proceeds |
| Denial of summary judgment / JMOL on defamation & false light | Plaintiffs: evidence supported liability and damages; questions of truth and malice for jury | Petta: statements were true or opinion; insufficient causation/damages so summary judgment or JMOL should have been granted | Denial affirmed — factual disputes (truth, implication, malice, damages) were for the jury |
| Sufficiency of damages; motion for new trial / remittitur | Plaintiffs: jury verdict should stand; damages appropriate for reputational and emotional harm | Petta: damages unsupported by evidence, speculative, and verdict shocks conscience; remittitur/new trial required | Judgment vacated and case remanded for new trial on liability and damages because compensatory award lacked evidentiary support and was excessive |
| Medical-battery counterclaim (summary judgment) | Plaintiffs: Petta consented to surgery so battery claim fails | Petta: consent was limited; alleged surgery exceeded scope (shortened/turned-up nose) | Summary judgment for Plaintiffs reversed — factual issue whether consent covered the specific procedure; counterclaim remanded for trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Peagler v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., 114 Ariz. 309 (discusses defamation standards for private persons)
- Yetman v. English, 168 Ariz. 71 (test for when statements are actionable vs. opinion/hyperbole)
- Godbehere v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., 162 Ariz. 335 (elements of false light invasion of privacy)
- Duncan v. Scottsdale Med. Imaging, Ltd., 205 Ariz. 306 (scope of consent and when lack of consent supports battery claim)
- Advanced Cardiac Specialists v. Tri-City Cardiology Consultants, P.C., 222 Ariz. 383 (qualified privilege for reports to medical board and abuse by actual malice)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (guideposts for reviewing punitive damages)
- BMW of N. Am., Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (limits on excessive punitive damages)
- Creamer v. Troiano, 108 Ariz. 573 (standards for reviewing remittitur/additur and appellate approach)