Paul Oden v. Carl Schwartz, M.D., 2013 R.I. LEXIS 80

Oden, 56, underwent mitral valve replacement by Dr. Singh in January 2004 at Rhode Island Hospital; Schwartz assisted as echocardiologist.
Postoperative March 2004 echocardiogram revealed severe aortic insufficiency caused by an errant suture, prompting Aug. 2004 second open-heart surgery at Brigham and Women’s Hospital.
Cardiac arrest occurred in recovery after the August 2004 surgery; Oden sued RI Hospital and Dr. Singh; a separate action against Schwartz was later filed and consolidated.
On Oct. 20, 2010, trial began; Schwartz sought to amend to assert intervening and superseding cause, which the court reluctantly allowed but did not instruct the jury on.
Jury returned $1.5 million verdict; Schwartz was 25% liable, Singh 75%; Oden’s wife’s loss of consortium claim was rejected.
Trial court awarded Oden $375,000 for Schwartz’s share, plus $170,260.27 prejudgment interest and $4,416.50 costs; Schwartz appealed on multiple grounds including prejudgment interest.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Intervening and superseding cause instruction	Schwartz’s liability remains; no independent superseding cause.	Singh’s later negligence could be independent and supersede Schwartz.	No instruction proper; evidence insufficient to compel; affirmed denial of instruction.
Admission of post-operative cardiac arrest testimony	Cardiac arrest linked causally to first surgery’s negligence.	Arrest was unrelated to Schwartz’s actions and due to independent factors.	Admissible; sufficient nexus shown to support causation argument.
Damages verdict	Damages supported by evidence of ongoing harm, reduced life expectancy, and future risks.	Damages overstated; verdict not supported by evidence of pain.	Judgment not disturbed; damages upheld after credibility/weight determinations.
Insurance instruction	Instruction properly framed to avoid juror speculation about insurance.	Rule 411 prohibits references to insurance entirely.	Instruction proper; did not prejudice Schwartz.
Constitutionality of § 9-21-10(b) prejudgment interest	Statute rationally related to settlement and compensation timing.	12% prejudgment interest violates due process and jury-trial rights.	Statute constitutional under rational-basis review; no due process violation found.

Seide v. State, 875 A.2d 1259 (R.I. 2005) (intervening cause analysis; independent events)
Contois v. Town of West Warwick, 865 A.2d 1019 (R.I. 2004) (causation and proximate cause framework)
Walsh v. Israel Couture Post, 542 A.2d 1094 (R.I. 1988) (independent intervening acts must be foreseeable)
Fontes v. Salomone, 824 A.2d 433 (R.I. 2003) (affirmative defense and jury instruction standards)
Murray v. Bromley, 945 A.2d 330 (R.I. 2008) (standard for denying remittitur; no shock to conscience)
English v. Green, 787 A.2d 1146 (R.I. 2001) (scope of damages and jury discretion)
Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Barry, 892 A.2d 915 (R.I. 2006) (prejudgment interest is statutory, not damages)
Barbato v. Paul Revere Life Insurance Co., 794 A.2d 472 (R.I. 2002) (insurance-related evidentiary considerations)
Martin v. Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Co., 559 A.2d 1028 (R.I. 1989) (purpose of prejudgment interest in delaying payments)
Blue Ribbon Beef Co. v. Napolitano, 696 A.2d 1225 (R.I. 1997) (rational basis review concept in damages context)
Perry v. Alessi, 890 A.2d 463 (R.I. 2006) (causal nexus between expert testimony and damages)
Cochran v. Dube, 330 A.2d 76 (R.I. 1975) (jury instruction and Rule 411 framework)
Sivo v. State, 809 A.2d 481 (R.I. 2002) (contextual review of jury instructions)