Seabury-Peterson v. Jhamb, 15 A.3d 746

Donna Seabury-Peterson was diagnosed with stage II breast cancer in 1990, treated with lumpectomy, radiation, and chemo, and entered remission.
Starting in 2003, Donna developed persistent right hip pain and consulted Dr. Kristen Jhamb of Mid Coast Medical Group.
Over 2004–2007 Donna reported pain in the neck, back, chest, and sternum; Jhamb’s notes often lacked detail; earlier records showed incomplete documentation.
In 2007 an MRI and tests revealed metastatic breast cancer to the spine, ribs, and sternum (stage IV), likely symptomatic for 3–4 years.
Donna underwent palliative radiation and medications; doctors testified earlier detection could have altered treatment; pain and quality of life deteriorated significantly.
The Petersons sued Mid Coast for negligence, the jury awarded about $1.1 million; the court later remitted Donna’s past medical expenses from the verdict after a finding that the medical-bills component was not supported by the evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Golden Rule closing argument improper prejudice	Petersons' remark urged sympathy and personal interest	Comment was isolated and curable; not reversible error	No abuse of discretion; curative instruction sufficed and mistrial denied
Excessive damages and potential improper motive	Verdict reflects passion/prejudice and misapplied damages measure	Damages within evidence; any excess could be cured by remittitur	No clear abuse; remittitur allowed for medical expenses; other damages upheld

Forrestal v. Magendantz, 848 F.2d 303 (1st Cir.1988) (Golden Rule arguments universally condemned; mistrial only if curative instruction cannot repair harm)
Budzko v. One City Ctr. Assocs., 767 A.2d 310 (Me. 2001) (Mistrial not required when curative instruction suffices)
Colvin v. A R Cable Servs.-ME, Inc., 697 A.2d 1289 (Me.1997) (Courts prefer curative instruction over mistrial for Golden Rule issues)
State v. Bridges, 854 A.2d 855 (Me.2004) (Exceptional prejudice may require mistrial)
Nyzio v. Vaillancourt, 382 A.2d 856 (Me.1978) (Excessive damages may reflect bias; remittitur as remedy when appropriate)
Provencher v. Faucher, 898 A.2d 404 (Me.2006) (Trial court may correct damages where improper motive or mistake affected award)
Chenell v. Westbrook Coll., 324 A.2d 735 (Me.1974) (Damages review focuses on whether award rationally supported by evidence)
Marston v. Newavom, 629 A.2d 587 (Me.1993) (Trial court better positioned to assess damages and motive; deferential standard)