STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. SAMUEL K. DAVISÂ (12-12-1189, GLOUCESTER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-5173-14T3
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Jul 18, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Lorraine Sheridan sued Dr. Frederic Lehman after her husband James Sheridan committed suicide about two weeks after Lehman prescribed Lexapro for anxiety, depression, and insomnia; plaintiff alleged negligent prescribing/monitoring and lack of informed consent.
- Lexapro (an SSRI) labeling and PDR warned of possible worsening depression and increased "suicidality" in children, adolescents, and young adults up to age 24, plus a black-box warning advising close monitoring, especially early in treatment.
- At trial the jury found defendant did not deviate from the standard of care (no negligence), but did find lack of informed consent and that an objectively reasonable person would not have taken or continued Lexapro had they known the undisclosed risks; however the jury found Lexapro was not a proximate cause of Sheridan’s suicide.
- Plaintiff’s causation proof relied on Dr. Peter Breggin (psychiatry) and Dr. William Wertheim (internal medicine); defense presented multiple experts (internal medicine and psychiatry) who testified Lexapro was not shown to increase suicidality in adults over 24 and that depression itself was the likely cause.
- Plaintiff appealed, raising claims of improper defense argument, erroneous jury instructions/ verdict form language, limitations on cross-examination and expert testimony, and denial of a new trial; the trial judge rejected these arguments in a written opinion and the Appellate Division affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Improper remarks by defense counsel warrant new trial | Counsel made disparaging/speculative comments about plaintiff's experts and suggested plaintiff (or decedent) "Googled" Lexapro, misstated law and used inflammatory analogies | Remarks were proper advocacy, limited, or harmless; judge corrected any misstatements; jury instructions cured concerns | No plain error; remarks were not sufficiently prejudicial to require a new trial |
| Jury instruction / verdict form on proximate cause (Scafidi theory) | Court should have given Scafidi/loss-of-chance style or different causation instruction/wording | Model civil charges and proximate cause instruction were appropriate; defense counsel agreed at charge conference | No error; the charge and verdict questions properly instructed on proximate/proximate cause concept |
| Limits on cross-examination / impeachment of defense witnesses and Dr. Breggin | Defense counsel improperly attacked and vouched about Dr. Breggin’s motives and suggested outside research would discredit him; plaintiff’s cross-examination on causation was curtailed | Cross-examination and summation remarks were within bounds or harmless; judge sustained objections and directed jury when needed | No reversible error; isolated misstatements or improper questions were corrected on the record and did not produce unjust result |
| Restricting Dr. Breggin’s testimony on standard of care | Court limited Breggin from testifying on standard of care because he was not in the same specialty as defendant | Limitation appropriate under expert statutory/specialty requirements (N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-41(a)) | Proper limitation; Breggin could testify on proximate cause but not on standard-of-care breach |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackowitz v. Lang, 408 N.J. Super. 495 (App. Div. 2009) (discusses plain-error review for unobjected-to trial remarks)
- Dolan v. Sea Transfer Corp., 398 N.J. Super. 313 (App. Div. 2008) (fleeting improper comments may not warrant a new trial)
- Scafidi v. Seiler, 119 N.J. 93 (1990) (loss-of-chance/pre-existing condition proximate-cause framework)
- Nicholas v. Mynster, 213 N.J. 463 (2013) (expert witness specialty requirements)
- State v. Macon, 57 N.J. 325 (1971) (court may direct jury to disregard improper evidence or questions)