HEALTHCARE UNDERWRITERS GROUP, INC., AMARNATH VEDERE, M.D. and CARDIOLOGY PARTNERS, P.L. v. DEBORAH SANFORD, as Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF GERALD L. SANFORD
20-2023
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Mar 30, 2022Background
- Plaintiff (Estate of Gerald Sanford) sued Dr. Amarnath Vedere for wrongful death/medical malpractice after an elective PCI; decedent went into cardiogenic shock and later died following multiple failed guide catheter attempts during the procedure.
- Palm Beach Gardens Medical Center (PBGMC) settled pre-trial and was dismissed; case proceeded to trial against Dr. Vedere alone.
- Trial evidence conflicted: Estate’s cardiology expert said the PCI was not indicated and excessive catheter attempts caused shock; defense experts said the PCI was indicated and the decedent’s pathology caused death.
- The Estate impeached and argued financial motive: Vedere had been paid (one $2,000 training payment) by the device manufacturer CSI; the court admitted this evidence and argument as relevant to motive.
- Mortality tables for decedent, spouse, and daughter were introduced; in closing the Estate argued the daughter’s long life expectancy warranted larger non-economic damages.
- Jury returned verdict ~$4.086M ($1M for wife, $2.5M for daughter). On post-trial review the court denied a new trial except it awarded prejudgment interest from the date defendant rejected arbitration; on appeal the court affirmed in part and reversed limitedly.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Settling defendant listed on verdict form caption (PBGMC) | Inclusion was harmless; jury not informed of settlement and verdict stands | Listing a dismissed/settled defendant violated §768.041(3) and requires new trial | Harmless error here; no showing jury was misled; affirmed |
| Evidence/argument of financial motive (payments from device maker) | Relevant to why Vedere performed/continued the procedure and to rebut purely medical motives | Irrelevant and unduly prejudicial; motive not an element of malpractice | Admissible under facts; trial court did not abuse discretion; no new trial |
| Life-expectancy evidence and closing argument re: daughter’s damages | Mortality tables and argument showing daughter’s long life expectancy are proper | Meeks limits a child’s non-economic damages to joint life expectancy with decedent; argument improperly invited award beyond that limit | Error to permit argument inviting consideration of daughter’s full life expectancy; award to daughter reversed and remanded for new trial limited to her non-economic damages |
| Prejudgment interest calculation under §766.209 after arbitration refusal | Interest runs from date defendant rejected arbitration and applies to all damages awarded | Interest should be limited (e.g., common-law rules) or run only from verdict for economic damages | Statutory interest accrues from rejection date and applies to all damages under the statute; affirmed (amount to be recalculated after new trial) |
Key Cases Cited
- Holmes v. Area Glass, Inc., 117 So. 3d 492 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (inclusion of settled defendant on verdict form can be harmful where jury inquiry shows influence)
- Samick Corp. v. Jackson, 645 So. 2d 1095 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (violations of §768.041(3) reviewed for harmless error)
- Special v. West Boca Med. Ctr., 160 So. 3d 1251 (Fla. 2014) (burden on beneficiary of error to show no reasonable possibility error contributed to verdict)
- Miller v. Affleck, 632 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (financial incentives/reliance upon surgery volume relevant in malpractice when propriety of surgery is disputed)
- BellSouth Tel. v. Meeks, 863 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 2003) (minor survivor’s non-economic wrongful-death recovery measured by joint life expectancy of child and deceased parent)
- McQueen v. Jersani, 909 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (evidence relevant to joint life expectancy is needed to establish damages)
- Graber v. Clarendon Nat’l Ins. Co., 819 So. 2d 840 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (prejudgment interest under §766.209 is a statutory incentive distinct from common-law prejudgment interest)
- Saunders v. Dickens, 151 So. 3d 434 (Fla. 2014) (expert testimony required to establish standard of care in malpractice actions)