Walsh v. Advanced Cardiac Specialists Chartered, 273 P.3d 645

Jerome Walsh died after heart surgery and a subsequent infection treated by ACS in Arizona; he died in Minnesota a day after hospital admission.
Elizabeth Walsh and the four children filed a wrongful death action against ACS and its employees, alleging failure to diagnose and treat the infection.
At trial, the family testified extensively about their close relationship with Jerome; testimony was not cross-examined and no defense contradiction or crosstalk on damages occurred.
The jury awarded Elizabeth $1 million and marked zero damages for each child on the verdict form.
The children moved for a new trial under Rule 59(a)(5) and 59(a)(8); the trial court found the verdict not automatically needing a new trial and cited waiver under Rule 49(c) based on White and Sedillo.
The Court of Appeals agreed with a different rationale, holding a zero-damages award could be permissible in wrongful death cases; the Arizona Supreme Court granted review to resolve statewide importance.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
May a wrongful death jury award zero damages despite uncontested damages?	Walshs contend a zero award is improper as damages were uncontested.	ACS contends the statute allows any amount the jury deems fair and just, including zero.	Yes; zero damages may be awarded in wrongful death cases.
Does Rule 49(c) waiver bar reconsideration of a zero-damages verdict?	Waiver forecloses a new-trial challenge.	Waiver does not foreclose merits review under Rule 59(a).	Waiver issue remanded; we disapprove the waiver reasoning and remand for merits review.
What standard governs a trial court's ruling on a Rule 59(a) motion in wrongful death cases?	Trial court should grant new trial where damages are uncontroverted.	Trial court should defer to the jury’s assessment as to fair and just damages.	Trial court may grant a new trial if the verdict is not justified by the evidence; weight-of-the-evidence standard applies.
May the jury properly disbelieve undisputed testimony in a wrongful death case?	The testimony of the children is undisputed and should be given weight.	A jury may disbelieve even undisputed testimony if there are reasons to doubt credibility.	Yes; the jury may discount such testimony and a zero-damages award is not impermissible.

White v. Greater Arizona Bicycling Association, 216 Ariz. 133 (App. 2007) (uncontradicted evidence may not be arbitrarily disregarded)
Sedillo v. City of Flagstaff, 153 Ariz. 478 (App. 1987) (jury may not disregard witness testimony without reason from record)
Trustmark Ins. Co. v. Bank One, Ariz., N.A., 202 Ariz. 535 (App. 2002) (waiver and new-trial issues depend on record, not default rulings)
Quinonez ex rel. Quinonez v. Andersen, 144 Ariz. 193 (App. 1984) (jury may award zero damages in wrongful death where appropriate)
Summerfield v. Superior Court, 144 Ariz. 467 (1985) (damages in wrongful death differ from tort damages; consider statute)
Gipson v. Kasey, 214 Ariz. 141 (2007) (wrongful death damages limited to statutory recovery; not decedent's own pain)
In re Wainola's Estate, 79 Ariz. 342 (1955) (factfinder may assess credibility; not bound to accept undisputed testimony)
Estate of Reinen v. N. Ariz. Orthopedics, Ltd., 198 Ariz. 283 (2000) (court may disbelieve or accept certain testimony for reasons shown)
City of Glendale v. Bradshaw, 114 Ariz. 236 (1977) (trial court decides weight of evidence; not simply appellate review)
Begay v. City of Tucson, 148 Ariz. 505 (1986) (trial court as ninth juror; broad discretion on new-trial rulings)