78 F.4th 402
8th Cir.2023Background
- Plaintiff Ian Wallace participated in multiple paid drug trials in early–mid 2016, including two at Pharma Medica where his blood was drawn ~97 times in total. He also underwent blood draws at three other facilities around the same period.
- On June 25, 2016 Wallace tested positive for hepatitis C and sued Pharma Medica for negligence, alleging both specific acts/omissions (e.g., non-sterile equipment, failure to test employees) and a res ipsa loquitur theory.
- At trial, Wallace's expert opined it was more likely than not Wallace contracted hepatitis C from a contaminated needle at Pharma Medica, but could not identify a particular draw; Pharma Medica presented evidence of sterile procedures and alternative windows of infection.
- The district court granted Pharma Medica's motion for a directed verdict on the specific-negligence claim, leaving only the res ipsa claim for the jury; the jury returned a verdict for Pharma Medica.
- Wallace moved for a new trial arguing (1) the res ipsa jury instruction (Instruction 19) was erroneous and (2) the court improperly admitted testimony from two Pharma Medica expert witnesses (Dr. Aronsohn, Nancy Glasgow-Roberts) and an executive (Dr. Khan) despite discovery/order violations.
- The Eighth Circuit affirmed, finding the instructions fairly presented Missouri law, the multiple-cause instruction was not warranted, and Wallace failed to show prejudice from any alleged discovery or evidentiary errors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Res ipsa instruction used plural "persons and instrumentalities," requiring control of multiple parties/instruments | Wallace: Plural wording improperly required proof Pharma Medica controlled non-party companies' personnel/instruments, imposing impossible burden | Pharma Medica: Instruction limited to the "relevant time period" and required control only over probable causes within that period; jury decides the relevant period | Instruction acceptable; plural phrasing read in context did not make charge unfair or inadequate |
| Failure to give multiple-cause (MAI 19.01) instruction | Wallace: Multiple-cause instruction warranted because Pharma Medica blamed third parties, Wallace's mitigation, and Wallace's own conduct | Pharma Medica: Only one cause was at issue (a contaminated instrument); alternatives are competing single causes, not multiple concurrent causes; failure-to-mitigate is not a cause of damage | No multiple-cause instruction required; only one cause at issue and mitigation not a cause |
| Admission of expert testimony despite alleged Rule 26(e) nondisclosures (Dr. Aronsohn, Glasgow-Roberts) | Wallace: Pharma Medica sent documents to experts late and violated disclosure rules; testimony should be struck | Pharma Medica: Any supplemental review did not change experts' opinions; no unfair surprise or prejudice | No abuse of discretion to admit testimony; Wallace failed to show prejudice or substantial influence on verdict |
| Trial testimony by Dr. Khan about employee testing (struck deposition testimony) | Wallace: Dr. Khan's statement that Missouri law prohibited employee hepatitis testing was improper and inconsistent with prior ruling | Pharma Medica: Statement arose during Wallace's cross-examination; Wallace did not object or request relief at trial | Waived for appeal (no contemporaneous objection); even if preserved, Wallace failed to show prejudice to the res ipsa claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Bamford, Inc. v. Regent Ins. Co., 822 F.3d 403 (8th Cir. 2016) (new-trial review is for clear abuse of discretion; prejudice required)
- Acuity v. Johnson, 776 F.3d 588 (8th Cir. 2015) (new trial requires showing result would differ absent error)
- Wurster v. Plastics Grp., Inc., 917 F.3d 608 (8th Cir. 2019) (district court has broad discretion in jury instructions)
- Barkley, Inc. v. Gabriel Bros., Inc., 829 F.3d 1030 (8th Cir. 2016) (instructions reviewed for fair submission of issues)
- Green v. Plaza in Clayton Condo. Ass'n, 410 S.W.3d 272 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013) (elements of res ipsa loquitur under Missouri law)
- Sides v. St. Anthony's Med. Ctr., 258 S.W.3d 811 (Mo. banc 2008) (res ipsa elements and control/right-to-control language)
- Higby v. Wein, 996 S.W.2d 95 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999) (multiple-cause instruction only when two or more causes of damage exist)
- Gareis v. 3M Co., 9 F.4th 812 (8th Cir. 2021) (prejudice requirement for admitting expert testimony with disclosure issues)
- Davis v. U.S. Bancorp., 383 F.3d 761 (8th Cir. 2004) (no unfair surprise where expert opinion unchanged after receiving additional materials)
- McKnight ex rel. Ludwig v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 36 F.3d 1396 (8th Cir. 1994) (appellate review requires contemporaneous objection to preserve evidentiary issues)