219 So. 3d 274
La.2017Background
- Kimberly Thibodeaux suffered a bladder laceration and a failed bladder repair during an emergency C‑section and hysterectomy in 2003; a urologist reopened and repaired the bladder the same day and placed stents/catheter.
- Thibodeaux later developed chronic urinary symptoms and reduced bladder capacity; causation between the failed repair and long‑term symptoms was disputed at trial.
- Jury found Dr. Donnell breached the standard of care and caused injury, awarded $60,000 (medical expenses) to Mrs. Thibodeaux and $0 for general damages or loss of consortium.
- On appeal the court of appeal: found some causation for Mrs. Thibodeaux, concluded the jury abused its discretion by awarding special but no general damages, awarded $50,000 general damages and loss of consortium awards ($15,000 husband; $5,000 child) using Coco principles.
- The Louisiana Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide the correct standard for appellate adjustment of damages (Coco v. Mart standards) and whether the court of appeal applied the proper review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper standard for appellate adjustment of damages when court of appeal alters jury’s factual findings | Coco review raising award to lowest reasonable amount is proper when jury abused discretion | Mart (de novo) applies if appellate court disturbs jury causation findings | Mart applies when appellate court finds manifest error in jury’s factual/causation findings; de novo review required (not Coco limits) |
| Whether the court of appeal improperly applied Coco after altering causation | Jury awarded medical expenses, so appellate should increase general damages under Coco | Court of appeal actually altered causation findings and thus should have used Mart | Majority: court of appeal in fact disturbed factual findings and therefore erred by applying Coco; reverse and remand for Mart de novo review |
| Standard for reviewing loss‑of‑consortium awards where jury found no causation to secondary claim | Plaintiffs: jury’s no‑award was manifestly erroneous; appellate may award damages de novo | Defendant: jury verdict entitled to deference; any adjustment limited by Coco if abuse of discretion | Court of appeal correctly found manifest error as to consortium; but then erred by applying Coco—Mart de novo review should have governed |
| Remedy (remand vs. render) — whether Supreme Court should remand for court of appeal or render judgment itself | Plaintiffs sought de novo reassessment; court of appeal to reapply Mart | Some concurring justices argued record was complete and this Court could render judgment | Majority: reverse and remand to court of appeal to reconsider awards under Mart (did not render final amounts) |
Key Cases Cited
- Coco v. Winston Indus., 341 So.2d 332 (La. 1976) (appellate limits when disturbing a damages award: disturb only to highest/lowest amount reasonably within factfinder’s discretion)
- Mart v. Hill, 505 So.2d 1120 (La. 1987) (when appellate court finds manifest error in factual/causation findings, it must perform de novo damages review unconstrained by Coco)
- Wainwright v. Fontenot, 774 So.2d 70 (La. 2000) (jury may award special but no general damages; appellate must decide whether that verdict is so inconsistent as to be an abuse of discretion)
- Green v. K‑Mart Corp., 874 So.2d 838 (La. 2004) (followed Wainwright on reviewing inconsistent special/general damages verdicts)
- Ryan v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 988 So.2d 214 (La. 2008) (distinguishes Coco application where causation is undisputed from Mart situations where causation errors compel de novo review)