Rochon v. Grant, 1 CA-CV 15-0745

Plaintiff Jamie Rochon, treated by chiropractor Daniel C. Grant from 2006; she had titanium rods in her spine from prior scoliosis surgery, a known contraindication to spinal manipulation.
On Feb. 8, 2010, Dr. Grant performed an adjustment that caused immediate pain; Rochon alleged the adjustment was over the rods and caused injury.
Rochon sued for medical malpractice (negligent adjustment) and later added a punitive damages claim, alleging Dr. Grant’s inaccurate/automated record-keeping concealed the rods and increased risk of harm.
Trial court granted partial summary judgment on record-keeping as a proximate cause for malpractice claims but denied summary judgment on punitive damages pretrial; during trial it granted JMOL as to punitive damages after plaintiff rested.
Jury awarded Rochon $35,000; after Rule 68 offsets final judgment was reduced; Rochon appealed the JMOL on punitive damages and several evidentiary exclusions (pattern evidence, financials, treatise, late witness).
Court of Appeals reversed the JMOL on punitive damages, ordered a new trial on punitive damages, and reversed exclusions of pattern-of-practice evidence, financial information, and a treatise as potentially relevant to punitive damages.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether JMOL on punitive damages was proper	Rochon: record-keeping failures and reliance on inaccurate charts produced clear-and-convincing evidence of conscious disregard (evil mind) supporting punitive damages	Grant: record-keeping did not cause the injury; punitive evidence lacks causal connection and is inapplicable like after-occurring conduct in Saucedo	Reversed JMOL; facts could permit a jury to find conscious disregard and submit punitive damages to jury
Admissibility of evidence showing a pattern of poor record-keeping	Rochon: past documentation practices show a pattern of reckless behavior relevant to punitive state of mind	Grant: prior acts irrelevant or unduly prejudicial	Reversed exclusion; pattern evidence relevant to punitive inquiry and causation
Admissibility of defendant’s financial information	Rochon: defendant’s wealth is relevant to punitive damages and discoverable once prima facie showing made	Grant: premature until prima facie case established	Reversed exclusion; financials discoverable/relevant after prima facie showing
Admissibility of a treatise by Dr. Sid Williams (Life University)	Rochon: treatise shows teachings that prioritize profit over ethics, relevant to motive/intent	Grant: lack of foundation; Dr. Grant not shown to have relied on or known the treatise	Reversed exclusion; treatise admissible for impeachment/weight where relevant to punitive claim

Rawlings v. Apodaca, 151 Ariz. 149 (1986) (punitive damages require proof of an evil mind or conscious disregard of substantial risk)
Linthicum v. Nationwide Life Ins. Co., 150 Ariz. 326 (1986) (punitive damages require clear and convincing evidence)
Newman v. Select Specialty Hosp.-Arizona, Inc., 239 Ariz. 558 (2016) (failure to follow known protocols can support punitive damages where jury could find conscious disregard)
Saucedo ex rel. Sinaloa v. Salvation Army, 200 Ariz. 179 (2001) (after-occurring outrageous conduct not causally related to injury cannot support punitive damages)
Thompson v. Better-Bilt Aluminum Prods. Co., 171 Ariz. 550 (1992) (heightened burden and standard for punitive damages)
Hudgins v. Southwest Airlines Co., 221 Ariz. 472 (2009) (standard of review for JMOL; view evidence in light most favorable to nonmovant)
Hawkins v. Allstate Ins. Co., 152 Ariz. 490 (1987) (defendant’s concealment and financial motive are relevant to punitive damages)
Arpaio v. Figueroa, 229 Ariz. 444 (2012) (prima facie standard for submitting punitive damages to jury)
Larriva v. Montiel, 143 Ariz. 23 (1984) (defendant’s wealth is relevant and subject to discovery in punitive damages cases)