145 So. 3d 1071
La. Ct. App.2014Background
- In June 2010, Nurse Gordon refilled Mr. Granger’s Medtronic pain pump at the Grangers’ home, resulting in a pocket fill with morphine that overdosed Mr. Granger.
- The jury allocated 97% fault to Medtronic, 2% to Nurse Gordon, and 1% to Mr. Granger; damages were awarded to Mr. and Mrs. Granger.
- The trial court granted JNOV, assigning 100% fault to Nurse Gordon and increasing general damages, then entered a final judgment in 2012 consistent with the JNOV.
- Medtronic trained Unique’s nurses in refill procedures; testimony about the training for pocket fills differed, with Medtronic claiming training included pocket-fill risk and the interrogator’s function, while Gordon testified otherwise.
- The appellate court ultimately reversed the JNOV on fault and damages, reinstating the jury verdict and June 18, 2012 judgment, and remanding for costs determination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the JNOV properly reassigned fault from the jury’s verdict | Grangers contended the jury’s allocation (97/2/1) should stand; JNOV errors disagreed. | Defendants argued Medtronic bore most fault due to inadequate training and recall nuances. | No; JNOV reversed and the jury verdict on fault reinstated. |
| Whether the JNOV properly increased general damages | Jury’s damages were supported by the trial record. | Trial court could adjust damages if warranted by evidence. | No; JNOV on damages was improper and the jury’s damages reinstated. |
| Whether the trial court properly denied the bystander recovery directed verdict | Bystander claims were properly distinct from medical fault. | Bystander issues should be resolved as in trial court. | No merit to challenge; directed verdict denial affirmed. |
| Whether Medtronic’s fault evidence supported the trial court’s JNOV analysis | Evidence showed Medtronic’s training inadequacies and recall impacts as main fault. | Evidence supported trial court’s credibility-based conclusions. | Appellate standard requires deferential review to jury; reversal of JNOV on fault proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, Inc., 772 So.2d 94 (La. 2000) (applies strict standard for appellate JNOV review; jury is trier of fact)
- Gutierrez v. La. Dep’t. of Transp. and Dev., 92 So.3d 380 (La.App. 1st Cir. 2012) (affirming deference to jury on fault allocation; independent review when JNOV Grant considered)
- Scott v. Hospital Serv. Dist. No. 1, 496 So.2d 270 (La.1986) (jury as trier of fact; JNOV authority limited by reasonable inferences)
- Clement v. Frey, 666 So.2d 607 (La.1996) (factors in assessing standard of care and fault distribution)
- Hypolite v. Columbia Dauterive Hosp., 968 So.2d 239 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 2007) (standard of care and fault evaluation in medical cases)
- Junot v. Morgan, 818 So.2d 152 (La.App. 1st Cir. 2002) (reasonableness of damages; affirming jury discretion in general damages)
- Trunk v. Medical Center of La., 885 So.2d 534 (La.2004) (abuse standard for JNOV on damages; deference to jury in quantum awards)
- Scott v. Hospital Serv. Dist. No. 1, 496 So.2d 270 (La.1986) (reiterates jury as fact-finder; JNOV limits)