Glasscock v. Board of Supervisors
174 So. 3d 757
La. Ct. App.2015Background
- This is a medical malpractice action by Carolyn Glasscock against LSUHSC relating to James Glasscock’s death after a motorcycle crash and subsequent treatment in 2008.
- A jury ultimately found no breach of the standard of care by LSUHSC personnel; judgments denying JNOV/new trial were entered in 2013 and 2014.
- Plaintiff appealed, raising several evidentiary and instructional issues, including an adverse presumption against uncalled witnesses and a judicial confession instruction.
- The Telemetry Unit details, nurse Jennifer Adams, telemetry technician Lottie Gardner, and the code event beginning at 2:27 a.m. on September 27, 2008 are central to the dispute.
- The medical review panel initially found no malpractice but identified a material issue of fact regarding whether the patient’s leads were off; the jury rejected plaintiff’s theories and the appellate court affirmed.
- The court ultimately affirmed the trial court’s judgment according to the jury verdict and denied post-trial motions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an adverse presumption should have been given against uncalled witnesses | Glasscock should have benefited from the adverse inference | Driscoll and Moretco support trial court discretion to not apply the inference | No abuse of discretion; no mandatory inference required |
| Whether the jury verdict was manifestly erroneous on lead connectivity and rhythm supervision | Leads were off or not timely observed, causing death | Evidence supported that leads were connected or reattachment not required to be documented; staff acted appropriately | No manifest error; evidence supported jury’s findings |
| Whether the judicial confession instruction was properly considered | Judicial confession narrowed issues and could support liability | Confession did not prove second brain injury or causation; speculation insufficient | Instruction and confession did not compel a finding of liability; affirmed reliance on jury verdict |
| Whether the court properly charged the jury on causation and standard of care given expert conflicting testimony | Expert Simmons supported malpractice; trial court misled by conflicting testimony | Judge properly weighed expert credibility; deference to jury findings | No reversible error; jury credibility determinations preserved |
Key Cases Cited
- Driscoll v. Stucker, 893 So.2d 32 (La. 2005) (adverse presumption admissibility and discretion)
- Ollis v. Miller, 886 So.2d 1199 (La.App.2d Cir. 2004) (uncalled witness rule application; discretionary)
- Moretco, Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish Council, 112 So.3d 287 (La.App. 4th Cir. 2013) (discretion to apply negative inference; cumulative or burdened proof considerations)
- Roth v. New Hotel Monteleone, L.L.C., 978 So.2d 1008 (La.App. 4th Cir. 2008) (uncalled witness rule applicability; tactical decisions allowed)