71 So. 3d 407
La. Ct. App.2011Background
- Decedent Elsie Simmons died in Schumpert ICU after a deterioration likely due to aspiration; nurse Lindsey and physicians' management were criticized for monitoring and responding to respiratory status.
- Dr. Alexander wrote orders (ABG, nebulizer) not all of which were carried out; respiratory rate spiked to 47/min at 3:00 p.m. without documented ABG.
- Treating doctors and nurses testified about monitoring, alarms, and adequacy of nursing care; medical experts offered competing views on whether care met standard.
- Medical review panel had found no breach of standard of care prior to litigation; plaintiffs filed malpractice suit in 2007 seeking survival and wrongful death damages.
- Jury returned a 9–3 verdict for plaintiffs, finding breach of standard of care by Schumpert and substantial factor in death; trial court denied JNOV and new trial; PCF intervened on appeal.
- Court affirms lower court’s judgment, holding evidence supported liability and damages, and addressing several evidentiary and procedural post-trial issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Liability: whether nursing staff breached the standard of care | Simmons contends Lindsey failed to recognize deterioration and follow orders. | Schumpert argues no rational basis for liability; outcomes were unpredictable and sudden. | Liability supported; jury findings not clearly wrong. |
| Judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) | JNOV wrongfully disregards weight of evidence in favor of plaintiffs. | JNOV warranted if evidence so overpowering to favor movant. | No error; record supports denial of JNOV. |
| Admissibility of death certificate | Death certificate was relevant corroboration of death timing. | Certificate was cumulative and unnecessary. | Admission harmless; no reversible error. |
| Exclusion of rhythm strips from evidence | Strips would illustrate alarm vs. non-alarm events. | Strips demonstrative; proper to exclude as evidence. | No reversible error; trial presentation sufficient. |
| Jury instruction on record-keeping and new trial for juror misconduct | Record-keeping instruction needed to address prejudice. | Instruction not essential; jury heard imperfections in records. | No reversible error; instruction not required; new trial denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pfiffner v. Correa, 643 So. 2d 1228 (La. 1994) (negligence standard and burden of proof in medical malpractice actions)
- Ball v. Charter Forest Behavioral Health System, Inc., 938 So. 2d 1092 (La.App.2d Cir. 2006) (nursing standard of care and duty of care in medical settings)
- Cangelosi v. Our Lady of the Lake Regional Med. Center, 564 So. 2d 654 (La.1989) (nurse duty and standard of care; professional judgment evaluated by circumstances)
- Benefield v. Sibley, 988 So. 2d 279 (La.App.2d Cir. 2008) (manifest error review; deference to jury; expert credibility)
- Wiley v. Lipka, 975 So. 2d 726 (La.App.2d Cir. 2008) (manifest error standard; review of fact findings)
- Adams v. Rhodia, Inc., 983 So. 2d 798 (La. 2008) (jury instructions; necessity of correct legal principles to guide verdict)
- Welch v. Willis-Knighton Pierremont, 56 So. 3d 242 (La.App.2d Cir. 2010) (new trial due to jury misconduct; standard of abuse of discretion)
- Smith v. Bundrick, 663 So. 2d 554 (La.App.2d Cir. 1995) (review of juror misconduct evidence for impartial verdict)
- Gormley v. Grand Lodge of the State of Louisiana, 503 So. 2d 181 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1987) (juror misconduct generally not grounds for automatic new trial)