Thomas v. Sharon
2013 Ark. App. 305
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Thomas suffered from chronic diverticulitis and underwent two surgeries by Dr. Sharon, with a third surgery to remove a retained six-inch clamp after a pelvic abscess formed.
- The retained clamp was discovered on October 8, 2005 during transfer to a Springfield hospital; Dr. Hodges performed the clamp removal and debridement.
- Thomas sued Dr. Sharon and St. John’s Hospital—Berryville; the defendants stipulated they were negligent for failing to remove the clamp, but denied proximate causation of damages.
- Experts disagreed on causation: Feinberg linked damages to infection and inflammatory processes rather than the clamp itself, while defense experts suggested the third surgery would have occurred regardless.
- The jury was instructed on proximate causation and the defendants’ negligence; the jury answered no to whether negligence proximate caused any of Thomas’s injuries or damages.
- The trial court denied Thomas’s Rule 59(a)6 motion for a new trial, and the appellate court affirmed, holding substantial evidence supported the verdict.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there substantial evidence of proximate causation? | Thomas argues the clamp’s presence caused damages; the admission of negligence should prove causation. | Defendants contend damages were not proven to be proximately caused by the clamp or by negligence. | Yes; substantial evidence supported the verdict denying proximate causation. |
| Does the stipulation of negligence require damages to be shown for proximate cause? | Admitted negligence in removing the clamp proves some damages were proximately caused. | Negligence admission does not automatically prove damages; causation must be shown. | No; proving damages remained necessary and jury could find no damages proximately caused. |
| Did the trial court properly instruct the jury on causation and apportionment between surgeries? | Damages were lumped, and jury might misstate causation between Surgery #1 and Surgery #2. | Instructions allowed a single proximate-cause framework; deference to jury verdict is proper. | Yes; instructions, viewed with deference to the jury, supported the verdict. |
| Is expert testimony required to prove causation in medical-injury cases when negligence is admitted? | Expert testimony is needed to prove damages causally related to negligence. | Causation can be shown by circumstantial evidence; experts are not always determinative. | Causation can be proven by circumstantial evidence; jury could rely on the record without exclusive reliance on experts. |
Key Cases Cited
- Blake v. Shellstrom, 388 S.W.3d 57 (Ark. 2012) (substantial-evidence standard applies to motions for new trial)
- Webb v. Bouton, 85 S.W.3d 885 (Ark. 2002) (substantial evidence standard; credibility and weight for jury)
- Montgomery v. Butler, 834 S.W.2d 148 (Ark. 1992) (jury determines weight of expert testimony)
- Fritz v. Baptist Mem’l Health Care Corp., 211 S.W.3d 593 (Ark. App. 2005) (damages must be proven; expert testimony often required)
- Arthur v. Zearley, 992 S.W.2d 67 (Ark. 1999) (causation is generally a question of fact for the jury)
- Chapman v. Ford Motor Co., 245 S.W.3d 123 (Ark. 2006) (proof of negligence and proximate cause; jury credibility)