Graff v. Children's Care Hospital and School, 943 N.W.2d 484

Benjamin Graff (Ben), a developmentally disabled individual with very limited cognitive and expressive communication, received services from Children’s Care Hospital and School (CCHS); while in residential care in 2010 CCHS used physical restraints (including prone restraints) on Ben over 140 times.
Ben’s parents removed him from residential care in September 2010; Ben sued (through his parents as guardians ad litem) alleging negligence and emotional distress based on CCHS’s use of restraints; claims for parents’ emotional distress and lack of informed consent were later withdrawn.
CCHS moved for summary judgment arguing the claims were medical malpractice and time-barred; the circuit court denied summary judgment. Prior to trial the court granted CCHS’s motion in limine and excluded several South Dakota Department of Health (DOH) surveys as of "limited relevance."
The court instructed the jury using statutes in Title 27B (relating to persons with developmental disabilities) after declining to apply certain corporal-punishment statutes; a three-week jury trial returned a defense verdict for CCHS.
CCHS sought $24,519.63 in disbursements; the circuit court apportioned and taxed two-thirds to Ben’s parents, awarding $7,606.54 against them. Ben appealed but did not order the trial transcript. The lack of a full trial transcript was dispositive on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Exclusion of Department of Health surveys	Surveys were admissible to show CCHS’s knowledge, habit/routine, and policy violations (other-acts/habit evidence)	Surveys were irrelevant or cumulative and primarily record-keeping deficiencies	Court affirmed exclusion—found record too sparse to review prejudice because appellant failed to provide trial transcript; verdict affirmed.
Taxation of disbursements against parents	Parents (as guardians) should not be personally liable; apportionment was inequitable	Parents actively prosecuted the case and should bear full disbursements	Court affirmed apportionment to parents (partial award); court acted within discretion given intertwined claims and parents’ role.
Denial of CCHS summary judgment (statute of repose)	(CCHS) Claims are medical-malpractice/time-barred under SDCL 15-2-14.1	(Plaintiff) Claims are ordinary negligence, not medical malpractice	Not reached on review; appellate court affirmed jury verdict and did not decide CCHS’s timeliness argument.
Jury instruction / standard of care (Title 27B vs. corporal-punishment statutes)	(Plaintiff) Objected to corporal-punishment statutes; urged different standard	(CCHS) Court should apply corporal-punishment statutes or different standard	Not resolved on appeal; appellate court did not address because transcript absence made meaningful review impossible.

St. John v. Peterson, 804 N.W.2d 71 (2011) (trial court evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Supreme Pork, Inc. v. Master Blaster, Inc., 764 N.W.2d 474 (2009) (two-step test for reversible evidentiary error: abuse of discretion and prejudicial effect)
Baltodano v. N. Cent. Health Servs., Inc., 508 N.W.2d 892 (1986) (appellant bears responsibility for providing an adequate appellate record)
In re C.M., 417 N.W.2d 887 (1987) (when record is incomplete, appellate presumption that trial court acted properly)
State v. Guthrie, 627 N.W.2d 401 (2001) (misapplication of an evidence rule constitutes abuse of discretion)
State v. Birdshead, 871 N.W.2d 62 (2015) (definition and limits of abuse of discretion review)
McLaren v. Sufficool, 862 N.W.2d 557 (2015) (disbursements awards reviewed for abuse of discretion)
DeHaven v. Hall, 753 N.W.2d 429 (2008) (disbursements are statutory and may be limited by the court in the interests of justice)