Klutschkowski v. PeaceHealth
311 P.3d 461
Or.2013Background
- Braedon suffered a brachial plexus injury during vaginal delivery after a shoulder dystocia; jury found Oregon Medical Group negligent and awarded economic and $1,375,000 noneconomic damages.
- Plaintiffs alleged the Medical Group failed to (1) inform mother of increased risk given prior shoulder dystocia and large fetal size, (2) offer or document C-section option, and (3) notify the delivering physician; plaintiffs also asserted an informed-consent theory.
- Defendant moved post-verdict to reduce noneconomic damages to the $500,000 statutory cap; trial court denied the motion. Defendant also objected at trial to an informed-consent instruction and requested an instruction limiting corporate liability to certain physicians.
- Court of Appeals: held defendant failed to preserve its objection to the informed-consent instruction under ORCP 59 H and held the statutory cap applied because, it concluded, common law in 1857 did not recognize birth/delivery injuries for purposes of constitutional limits on legislative alteration of damages.
- Supreme Court review: affirmed trial court on instructions and reversed Court of Appeals insofar as it reduced the noneconomic award — holding the jury’s noneconomic award cannot be capped under Article I, §17 because a malpractice/jury-right existed in 1857 for injuries like Braedon’s.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant preserved and excepted to informed-consent instruction under ORCP 59 H | Klutschkowski: trial colloquy and the court’s statement taking prior objections as exceptions preserved the issue | Medical Group: did not make a particularized exception immediately after instructions; earlier objections insufficient | Preserved — court found incorporation by reference and trial court’s statements satisfied ORCP 59 H |
| Whether submitting informed-consent theory to jury was reversible given other negligence theories/instructions | Plaintiffs: informed-consent properly submitted; jury could rely on several theories | Medical Group: informed-consent never applies to vaginal delivery; at minimum directed verdict should have been granted | No reversible error — under Shoup, defendant could not show prejudice because multiple uncontested negligence theories could explain verdict |
| Whether trial court erred by refusing defendant’s requested instruction limiting liability to particular physicians | Klutschkowski: existing jury instructions already confined negligence to the alleged acts/omissions during Braedon’s pregnancy/delivery | Medical Group: instruction was necessary to avoid jury confusion and prevent liability for Powell (time-barred) | No reversible error — court found trial instructions, read as a whole, adequately confined the jury to the pleaded acts |
| Whether ORS 31.710(1) statutory cap on noneconomic damages applies given Articles I §10 and §17 (i.e., whether common law in 1857 recognized the cause of action such that legislature cannot reduce jury noneconomic awards) | Plaintiffs: malpractice/jury damages for these delivery injuries fall within 1857 common-law protections; applying cap violates Article I §17 (jury right) | Medical Group: injuries occurring during birth are "prenatal" or not recognized in 1857; thus legislature may cap awards | Held for plaintiffs on §17: common law in 1857 recognized malpractice/jury trial for injuries like Braedon’s (injury during delivery after head emerged), so statutory cap violates Article I §17 and cannot be applied |
Key Cases Cited
- Shoup v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 335 Or. 164 (2003) (prejudice standard for submitting alternative theories to a jury)
- Delaney v. Taco Time Int'l, 297 Or. 10 (1984) (purpose of ORCP 59 H; exceptions must inform trial court and allow correction)
- Mead v. Legacy Health System, 352 Or. 267 (2012) (standard for stating facts consistent with jury verdict)
- Wallach v. Allstate Ins. Co., 344 Or. 314 (2008) (distinguishing erroneous legal instruction that misstates law from nonprejudicial submissions)
- Lakin v. Senco Products Inc., 329 Or. 62 (1999) (Article I, §17 prohibits legislative reduction of jury noneconomic awards in actions with jury trial right customary in 1857)
- Smothers v. Gresham Transfer, Inc., 332 Or. 83 (2001) (remedy clause analysis: common-law rights as of 1857 determine constitutional protection under Article I, §10)
- Hughes v. PeaceHealth, 344 Or. 142 (2008) (application of Smothers framework to Article I, §17 in wrongful-death/damages context)
- Christiansen v. Providence Health Sys., 210 Or. App. 290 (2006) (Court of Appeals’ view that 1857 common law did not recognize certain prenatal/delivery injury claims)
- Dietrich v. Northampton, 138 Mass. 14 (1884) (refusing to recognize civil action for injuries received in utero where injury to mother caused miscarriage)
- Allaire v. St. Luke’s Hosp., 184 Ill. 359 (1900) (holding child had no common-law action for injuries occurring while part of mother)