Savage v. Three Rivers Medical Center
390 S.W.3d 104
| Ky. | 2012Background
- Savage (Sophia) and Darrell sued Three Rivers Medical Center for medical malpractice concerning the 2001 hysterectomy at Three Rivers.
- First trial (2008) produced a plaintiff verdict; Three Rivers moved for JNOV and for a new trial; court granted a new trial due to evidentiary error regarding authentication of 1993 ARH x-rays.
- In 2005 a CT revealed a retained surgical sponge in Sophia’s abdomen; sponge removal and extensive intestinal surgery followed; Edens (surgeon) settled prior to trial.
- Second trial (2009) admitted the 1993 x-rays after authentication; verdict awarded substantial damages to Sophia and Darrell; Three Rivers again moved for JNOV and/or new trial.
- Court of Appeals reversed the trial court on JNOV/new-trial standards; Supreme Court reversed Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court’s new-trial ruling; cross-petitions addressed admissibility, expert testimony, apportionment, and damages.
- Key post-trial issues included admissibility of the 1993 x-rays, Cooke’s expert testimony, apportionment of fault to a settling non-party (Edens), and the excessiveness of damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| CR 50.02 remedies after inadmissible evidence | Appellants: JNOV should follow exclusion of key evidence | Three Rivers: trial court could order new trial instead | Trial court properly ordered a new trial, not JNOV. |
| Admissibility of the 1993 x-rays in the second trial | Evidence should support plaintiff’s theory without the 1993 x-rays | X-rays properly authenticated and admissible in second trial | 1993 x-rays properly admitted in the second trial. |
| Cooke's qualification to interpret x-rays | Cooke should be allowed to interpret x-rays as an expert | Cooke lacked traditional x-ray qualification | Cooke qualified; testimony deemed cumulative and harmless. |
| Apportionment of fault to a settling/non-party | Evidence supports apportioning fault to Edens | Insufficient expert proof tying Edens to breach; no apportionment instruction warranted | No apportionment instruction warranted; Edens not proven at fault by expert testimony. |
| Excessiveness of damages in the second trial | Damages reflect substantial injury and loss of quality of life | Damages excessive and unsupported by the record | Damages not shown to be excessive; affirmed underlying verdict. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fister v. Commonwealth, 133 S.W.3d 480 (Ky.App.2003) (directed verdict standard; absence of proof)
- Cheshire v. Barbour, 455 S.W.2d 62 (Ky.1970) (directed verdict and JNOV applicability)
- Nazar v. Branham, 291 S.W.3d 599 (Ky.2009) (standard for expert testimony and apportionment)
- Owens Coming Fiberglas Corp. v. Parrish, 58 S.W.3d 467 (Ky.2001) (fault apportionment principles)
- CertainTeed Corp. v. Dexter, 380 S.W.3d 64 (Ky.2010) (empty-chair defendants and fault allocation)
- NKC Hospitals, Inc. v. Anthony, 849 S.W.2d 564 (Ky.App.1993) (damages in medical malpractice context)
- Weisgram v. Marley Co., 528 U.S. 440 (U.S.1980) (appellate deference to trial judge’s findings from live testimony)