Harvey v. Mohammed
941 F. Supp. 2d 93
D.D.C.2013Background
- David Harvey, as personal representative for Curtis Suggs, sues the District of Columbia, Symbral Foundation and others under 42 U.S.C. §1983 and DC statutes; Symbral and the Mohammeds settled; Dr. Egbuonu was dismissed; MRDDA oversaw Suggs’s care but liability remained with the District.
- Suggs, born 1932 with cerebral palsy, lived in a Symbral group home from 1984 until his death in 2000; health deteriorated starting 1995, including cervical stenosis discovered in 1997 and eventual death from complications in 2000.
- MRI and surgery recommendations were delayed; IDT and District oversight delayed care; sister Carrie Weaver’s consent issues and District authority to consent for surgery were central; damages sought for District’s alleged negligence and §7-1305.14 violation.
- A partial summary judgment in January 2012 found for plaintiff on the District’s negligence and §1983 claims, and for plaintiff on §7-1305.14 count; damages trial in April 2012 awarded $2.9 million with $500,000 allocated to the 1999-2000 period; District sought a new trial or remittitur, which the court denied.
- The court ultimately held the damages verdict not excessive and declined remittitur, denying the District’s motion for new trial on damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the damages verdict warrants a new trial on damages | Weight of evidence supports damages; errors argued are insufficient | Verdict tainted by evidentiary errors and misinstructions | Denied; no reversible error found on balance of harms |
| Preclusion of Dr. Gersh as expert | District failed Rule 26(a)(2)(C) compliance; preclusion proper | Discretionary for permissible disclosures; error to preclude | Denied; expert preclusion affirmed |
| Jury instruction on $595,000 set-off | Set-off was appropriately disclosed as potential offset in offset proceedings | Instruction improperly suggested reimbursement to District | Denied; set-off instruction deemed reasonable and not prejudicial |
| Closing remarks Golden Rule and punitive damages | No reversible error; statements not a punitive damages request | Golden Rule and punitive damage references improper | Denied; no reversible error found |
Key Cases Cited
- Gasparini v. Center for the Humanities, Inc., 518 U.S. 415 (U.S. 1996) (framework for remittitur and excessiveness review)
- Hetzel v. Prince William County, 523 U.S. 208 (U.S. 1998) (remittitur and excessive damages considerations)
- Quercia v. United States, 289 U.S. 466 (U.S. 1933) (prohibition on instructions based on conjectural facts; context differs from damages setting)
- Caudle v. District of Columbia, 707 F.3d 354 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (golden rule arguments improper in damages; preservation required)
- Skaggs v. J. H. Rose Truck Line, Inc., 435 F.2d 695 (5th Cir. 1970) (preservation requirement for golden rule arguments)