Estate of Savino v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hosp. Auth.
262 N.C. App. 526
N.C. Ct. App.2018Background
- Decedent Anthony Savino died hours after discharge from CMC‑Northeast’s ER on April 30, 2012; EMS had treated him en route with aspirin and nitroglycerin and the hospital discharged him after a "negative cardiac workup."
- Plaintiff (the Estate) filed a medical negligence complaint in April 2014, voluntarily dismissed it in January 2016, then refiled a new complaint against the hospital only in February 2016.
- Plaintiff proceeded at trial on two theories: (1) medical negligence (clinical care) and (2) administrative/corporate negligence (hospital policies, protocols, credentialing/supervision). The hospital objected that administrative negligence was not pleaded and, alternatively, was time‑barred.
- A jury found both theories proved, awarded $680,000 economic and $5,500,000 non‑economic damages, and found reckless disregard. Judgment and costs followed; the hospital moved for JNOV or new trial and appealed when denied.
- The Court of Appeals reversed in part: it held administrative negligence was not properly pleaded (and would be time‑barred if asserted), upheld the medical‑negligence verdict, but vacated the non‑economic damages award and ordered a new trial limited to non‑economic damages (including pain and suffering).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff pleaded an administrative (corporate) negligence claim | The 2016 complaint and earlier filings put the hospital on notice of corporate/administrative negligence ("corporate negligence" includes clinical and administrative breaches) | 2016 complaint alleged only clinical/medical failures; it did not plead administrative breaches required by §90‑21.11(2)(b) | Court: Not pleaded. The 2016 complaint’s allegations described clinical care failures, not administrative duties; trial court erred in permitting the administrative claim at trial. |
| If administrative negligence was pleaded, whether it was time‑barred | N/A (plaintiff relied on prior 2014 filing and discovery to preserve claims) | Any administrative negligence claim in the 2016 filing does not relate back to the 2014 complaint and thus is barred by applicable limitations | Court: Even assuming pleaded, administrative claim would be time‑barred because it was not included in the 2014 complaint that was voluntarily dismissed. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for medical negligence (standard of care/expert proof) | Plaintiff’s expert (Dr. Mayer) adequately established the community standard by review of records, demographics, protocols and comparison to a similar center | Dr. Mayer lacked sufficient familiarity with the local community standard (never practiced in NC/Concord) and was therefore unqualified | Court: Trial court did not abuse discretion in qualifying Dr. Mayer; medical‑negligence claim could properly go to the jury and verdict on that claim stands. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for non‑economic damages (pain and suffering) | Expert testimony (Dr. Selwyn) that it was "more likely than not" decedent experienced recurrent ischemic chest pain supported submission of conscious pain and suffering to jury | Testimony was speculative; no direct evidence of conscious pain after discharge, so pain/suffering award lacked reasonable certainty | Court: Evidence insufficient to support pain and suffering with reasonable certainty; because non‑economic damages were awarded as a lump sum, remand for a new trial limited to non‑economic damages is required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Estate of Ray v. Forgy, 227 N.C. App. 24 (N.C. Ct. App. 2013) (distinguishing clinical corporate negligence from administrative/corporate negligence)
- Smith v. Whitmer, 159 N.C. App. 192 (N.C. Ct. App. 2003) (expert must be familiar with the community standard; explains permissible methods to establish familiarity)
- Kearney v. Bolling, 242 N.C. App. 67 (N.C. Ct. App. 2015) (trial court’s broad discretion in admitting expert testimony about community standard)
- Blanton v. Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp., Inc., 319 N.C. 372 (N.C. 1987) (hospital corporate‑negligence/context on hospital duties)
- DiDonato v. Wortman, 320 N.C. 423 (N.C. 1987) (damages, including pain and suffering, must be proven with reasonable certainty; no recovery on pure speculation)
- Norwood v. Carter, 242 N.C. 152 (N.C. 1955) (damages may not be based on guesswork; must be supported by facts permitting reasonable inference)
- Cobo v. Raba, 347 N.C. 541 (N.C. 1998) (if any evidence supports contributory negligence, jury must decide; directed verdict improper unless no more than a scintilla)