840 N.W.2d 662
S.D.2013Background
- Lisa Lewis underwent laparoscopic gastric band surgery at Sanford Medical Center in September 2007; preoperative tests showed no cardiac issues or abdominal pain.
- During the procedure, Bowar, a Sanford employee, attached an orogastric tube to an oxygen supply instead of suction, causing pressurized oxygen to fill Lewis’s stomach.
- Surgeon aborted the surgery upon noticing problems; four additional incisions were made to assess injury, but no major perforation or contamination was found.
- Postoperatively, Lewis developed sick sinus syndrome and symptomatic bradycardia necessitating a pacemaker implanted on September 26, 2007; she later experienced neck, back, shoulder, leg, and abdominal pain.
- Lewis filed suit in October 2010 alleging medical malpractice; Sanford admitted negligence but moved for summary judgment on a statute-of-limitations defense, which the circuit court denied.
- A five-day trial resulted in a verdict for Sanford, finding no damages caused by Sanford’s negligence; Lewis moved for a new trial and the circuit court granted it, focusing on damages for cardiac problems.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit court abused its discretion granting a new trial on cardiac-damages. | Lisa contends the verdict on cardiac damages was unsupported by the evidence and required a new trial. | Sanford argues the court properly granted a new trial due to perceived error in causation/damages. | Abuse of discretion; verdict on cardiac damages affirmed; new trial on cardiac damages reversed. |
| Whether incisional-pain damages were barred by the statute of limitations. | Lisa argues continuing treatment tolled the limitations period for incisional pain. | Sanford contends no continuing treatment for incisional pain occurred post-2007, so limitations expired. | Incisional-pain claim barred by SDCL 15-2-14.1; no tolling by continuing treatment. |
| Whether the remaining limitations issue on the pacemaker-related damages could be reviewed. | Lisa maintained the trial court could consider limitations with respect to the cardiac-related claims. | Sanford argues limitation issues were not properly before the court due to the verdict. | Not reviewed; circuit court’s error in granting new trial on cardiac-damages issue is dispositive. |
Key Cases Cited
- Waldner v. Berglund, 2008 S.D. 75, 754 N.W.2d 832 (S.D. 2008) (abuse-of-discretion standard for new-trial rulings)
- Reinfeld v. Hutcheson, 2010 S.D. 42, 783 N.W.2d 284 (S.D. 2010) (greater deference to trial court on new trials; why allowed)
- Surgical Inst. of S.D., P.C. v. Sorrell, 2012 S.D. 48, 816 N.W.2d 133 (S.D. 2012) (if competent evidence supports verdict, it will be upheld)
- One Star v. Sisters of St. Francis, 2008 S.D. 55, 752 N.W.2d 668 (S.D. 2008) (burden shift on summary judgment where statute-of-limitations defense shown)
- Liffengren v. Bendt, 2000 S.D. 91, 612 N.W.2d 629 (S.D. 2000) (continuing-treatment doctrine governing tolling of limitations)
- Greene v. Morgan, Theeler, Cogley & Petersen, 1998 S.D. 16, 575 N.W.2d 457 (S.D. 1998) (summary judgment burden-shifting framework for tolling)
- Bruske v. Hille, 1997 S.D. 108, 567 N.W.2d 872 (S.D. 1997) (continuing-treatment doctrine applicability prerequisites)
- Schoenrock v. Tappe, 419 N.W.2d 197 (S.D. 1988) (treatment of medical malpractice causation and related issues)
- Conner v. St. Luke’s Hosp., Inc., 996 F.2d 651 (4th Cir. 1993) (continuing-treatment concept in federal context)
- Credit Collection Servs., Inc., 2006 S.D. 81, 721 N.W.2d 476 (S.D. 2006) (summary-judgment standard and abuse-of-discretion considerations)