Hatwood v. Hospital of the University
55 A.3d 1229
Pa. Super. Ct.2012Background
- HUP and Dr. Chen appeal a judgment in a Philadelphia County medical malpractice case involving Hyseem Jacobs.
- Hyseem’s mother Hatwood and Hyseem’s father Jacobs and his estate sued HUP, Dr. Chen, and Dr. Fernandez for professional negligence.
- Hyseem was born by C-section after a late-night admission, suffered hypoxic-ischemic brain injury at birth, leading to cerebral palsy and death at 17 months.
- At trial, a verdict of $2,154,583 was entered against HUP and Dr. Chen after a two-week trial; Dr. Fernandez was nonsuited.
- The trial court denied post-trial motions; the appellate court affirmed, addressing bifurcated issues on damages, causation, and jury instructions.
- Procedural posture remains: appellate review of the sufficiency of the evidence, jury instructions, and damages under the Wrongful Death Act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Damages for loss of society under the Wrongful Death Act | Loss of society/companionship are recoverable; no mathematical certainty required. | No recoverable non-pecuniary damages for infant society/companionship; uncertainty defeats recovery. | No error; damages for loss of society were properly allowed. |
| Judgment non obstante verdict (JNOV) on damages for loss of society | Evidence supports causation and value of Hyseem’s life. | Evidence insufficient or improperly linked to damages. | No basis to overturn; denial of JNOV affirmed. |
| Weight-of-the-evidence challenge to verdict | Trial record supported causation and timing of injury. | Great weight of evidence favors contrary view. | Verdict not against weight of evidence; affirmed. |
| Causation and linking negligence to Hyseem’s injuries | Nurses/Dr. Chavkin’s omissions increased risk, causing injury. | Cannot prove causation; testimony misinterpreted. | Evidence sufficient to support causation; upheld. |
| Remittitur and increased-risk-of-harm instruction | Damages not shocking; no remittitur warranted. | Award excessive/unconscionable; request for remittitur appropriate. | No remittitur or new trial warranted; instruction was proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Patton v. Worthington Associates, Inc., 43 A.3d 479 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard for jury instructions; abuse of discretion governs outcome)
- Slaseman v. Myers, 455 A.2d 1213 (Pa. Super. 1983) (damages under Wrongful Death Act include value of decedent's services)
- Machado v. Kunkel, 804 A.2d 1238 (Pa. Super. 2002) (damages include value of services; consortial concepts)
- Rettger v. UPMC Shadyside, 991 A.2d 915 (Pa. Super. 2010) (consortium/household services; damages allowed)
- Spangler v. Helm’s New Yorker-Pittsburgh Motor Exp., 396 Pa. 482 (Pa. 1959) (uncertainty of damages; compensation for family happiness)
- McCleary v. Pittsburgh Rys. Co., 47 Pa. Super. 366 (Pa. Super. 1911) (use of best available evidence to value infant life)
- Winschel v. Jain, 925 A.2d 782 (Pa. Super. 2007) (increased-risk-of-harm standard in causation)
- Betz v. Erie Insurance Exchange, 957 A.2d 1244 (Pa. Super. 2008) (jury damages should reflect reasonableness; deference to verdict)
- American Future Systems, Inc. v. BBB, 872 A.2d 1202 (Pa. Super. 2005) (admissibility/evidentiary rulings governed by abuse of discretion)