Sandretto v. Payson Healthcare Management, Inc.
234 Ariz. 351
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- In 2008 Lori Sandretto injured her knee, underwent surgeries, developed a MRSA joint infection, required multiple washouts and a knee replacement, and was later diagnosed with Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS).
- Sandretto sued orthopedic surgeon Dr. Charles Calkins and his employer Payson Healthcare Management (PHM) for medical malpractice alleging delayed diagnosis/treatment of MRSA led to additional surgeries and permanent impairment.
- Calkins settled with Sandretto days before trial; PHM proceeded to trial and after an 11-day trial a jury awarded plaintiff $7,275,160. The trial court also awarded Rule 68 sanctions to Sandretto.
- PHM moved for a new trial raising: erroneous admission of expert testimony (Dr. Michael Ferrante re: CRPS causation), exclusion/limitation of prior-medical-condition evidence, insufficient foundation for future-care cost testimony, untimely expert disclosures, improper handling of the co-defendant’s (Calkins) settlement and alleged collusion, denial of a continuance, and that the verdict lacked sufficient evidence or was the product of passion/prejudice.
- The trial court denied the motion for a new trial; the Court of Appeals limited review to issues raised in the Rule 59 motion and affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion in evidentiary rulings, settlement approval, or denial of continuance, and that substantial evidence supported the verdict.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Sandretto) | Defendant's Argument (PHM) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of expert Ferrante’s CRPS diagnosis & causation | Ferrante is qualified; his exam, tests, and experience support CRPS diagnosis and causation from post‑MRSA surgeries | Testimony was unreliable/speculative under Rule 702/Daubert; required exclusion or pretrial Daubert hearing | Court allowed testimony; no abuse of discretion — experience‑based medical opinion admissible absent persuasive scientific challenge |
| Exclusion/limitation of prior medical condition evidence | N/A (plaintiff successfully moved in limine) | Exclusion unfairly limited cross‑examination; court failed to make specific Rule 403 findings | PHM’s appellate argument insufficiently developed and largely waived; many items were admitted; no reversible error |
| Foundation for future care costs (life care plan) | Lukens relied on physicians, personal evaluation, accepted methods and pricing; adequate under Rule 703 | Insufficient medical foundation; Ferrante did not review plan line by line | Life care plan admissible; any inconsistencies go to weight not admissibility |
| Effect of Calkins’s settlement (good‑faith & vicarious liability) | Settlement collusive; dismissal/covenant should eliminate vicarious liability or require jury notice; PHM needed time to prepare for good‑faith hearing | Settlement was disclosed, not collusive; dismissal without prejudice and covenant not to execute do not release PHM; continuance unnecessary | Court properly approved settlement as made in good faith, denied continuance fairly, and dismissal/covenant did not bar vicarious liability; no abuse of discretion |
| Sufficiency of evidence and jury misconduct in closing | N/A (plaintiff defended verdict) | Verdict unsupported, excessive, product of passion/prejudice; improper closing arguments | Verdict supported by substantial evidence of economic and noneconomic loss; PHM waived closing‑argument complaints and did not show misconduct affected verdict |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (establishes federal Daubert gatekeeping factors for expert admissibility)
- Hutcherson v. City of Phoenix, 192 Ariz. 51 (standard for reviewing verdicts/new trial; trial judge sits as ninth juror)
- Ariz. State Hosp./Ariz. Cmty. Protection & Treatment Ctr. v. Klein, 231 Ariz. 467 (construction of amended Rule 702 and reliance on federal interpretations)
- Pipher v. Loo, 221 Ariz. 399 (abuse of discretion review for expert testimony rulings)
- Law v. Verde Valley Med. Ctr., 217 Ariz. 92 (effect of dismissal with prejudice on vicarious liability principles)
- Barmat v. John & Jane Doe Partners A–D, 165 Ariz. 205 (standard for approving settlements and discretionary review)
- In re Alcorn, 202 Ariz. 62 (collusive settlement may produce sham trial and be invalid)