Horn v. St. Peter's Hospital
2017 MT 298
| Mont. | 2017

Background

  • In April 2011 Eric Horn fell, sustaining injuries that required hospitalization and surgeries; an Optease retrievable IVC filter was placed to prevent pulmonary embolism.
  • After ~120 days the primary surgeon ordered filter removal; an attempted retrieval at St. Peter’s Hospital failed because the filter was embedded in the IVC wall.
  • Horn subsequently experienced complications (pain, DVT/hematoma), was treated at other hospitals, and ultimately required specialized procedures at Stanford to remove the filter; a catheter fragment remained embedded.
  • Horn sued St. Peter’s Hospital for medical negligence in September 2013; a jury returned a verdict for Horn and awarded damages of $492,268.39.
  • The Hospital renewed a Rule 50 motion; the District Court granted judgment as a matter of law for the Hospital, concluding Horn failed to prove the applicable medical standard of care through expert testimony.
  • The Montana Supreme Court affirmed, holding Horn’s evidence failed to establish (1) the applicable standard of care, (2) a breach of that standard, and (3) causation/damages tied to a proven breach.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether the district court erred by granting JMOL after a plaintiff’s jury verdict Horn: Hospital negligently managed filter selection, tracking, and timing of retrieval, causing preventable embedding and injury Hospital: Plaintiff failed to present expert proof of the applicable standard of care or breach; evidence insufficient as a matter of law Affirmed: JMOL proper because Horn failed to prove the required medical standard of care and breach via admissible expert testimony

Key Cases Cited

  • Schumacher v. Stephens, 288 Mont. 115, 956 P.2d 76 (Mont. 1998) (Rule 50 standard — JMOL proper only when no evidence justifies jury submission)
  • Johnson v. Costco Wholesale, 336 Mont. 105, 152 P.3d 727 (Mont. 2007) (review of Rule 50 motions; courts should exercise restraint interfering with jury verdicts)
  • Labair v. Carey, 367 Mont. 453, 291 P.3d 1160 (Mont. 2012) (plaintiff must prove standard of care, breach, and causation in medical malpractice; expert testimony ordinarily required)
  • Dalton v. Kalispell Regional Hosp., 256 Mont. 243, 846 P.2d 960 (Mont. 1993) (same standards apply to hospital negligence claims)
  • Norris v. Fritz, 364 Mont. 63, 270 P.3d 79 (Mont. 2012) (a provider’s isolated practice not grounded in national standards lacks relevance to malpractice standard of care)
  • Montana Deaconess Hosp. v. Gratton, 169 Mont. 185, 545 P.2d 670 (Mont. 1976) (individual practice evidence insufficient to establish the universal standard of care)
  • Hyman & Armstrong, P.S.C. v. Gunderson, 279 S.W.3d 93 (Ky. 2008) (manufacturer materials are relevant but not sole determinant of medical standard of care)
  • Richardson v. Miller, 44 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000) (package inserts and PDR do not alone establish standard of care)
  • Morlino v. Med. Ctr. of Ocean Cnty., 684 A.2d 944 (N.J. Super. App. Div. 1996) (package inserts may be considered alongside expert testimony)
  • Craft v. Peebles, 893 P.2d 138 (Haw. 1995) (manufacturer insert cannot by itself establish standard of care; must be coupled with expert testimony)
Read the full case