Collado v. Fiesta Park Healthcare, LLC
| Decision Date | 31 August 2022 |
| Docket Number | A-1-CA-38271 |
| Parties | ESTHER COLLADO, Deceased, by the Personal Representative of the WRONGFUL DEATH ESTATE, MERLINDA PEREA, Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, v. FIESTA PARK HEALTHCARE, LLC d/b/a MEDICAL RESORT AT FIESTA PARK (THE); ENCHANTED HEALTH DEVELOPMENT, LLC; and WW MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendants-Appellants/Cross-Appellees. and FIESTA PARK HEALTHCARE, LLC; ENCHANTED HEALTH DEVELOPMENT, LLC; and WW MANAGEMENT, LLC, Third-Party Plaintiffs, v. HOMELAND INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK, a wholly owned subsidiary of ONEBEACON U.S. HOLDINGS COMPANY, INC., Third-Party Defendant. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of New Mexico |
Corrections to this opinion/decision not affecting the outcome, at the Court's discretion, can occur up to the time of publication with NM Compilation Commission. The Court will ensure that the electronic version of this opinion/decision is updated accordingly in Odyssey.
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY Nan G. Nash District Judge Pro Tem
Jeffrey A. Pitman
Benjamin E. Reyes
Milwaukee, WI
Feliz Angelica Rael
Albuquerque, NM
for Appellees
Holland &Hart LLP
Larry J. Montano
Julia Broggi
Santa Fe, NM
Hogan Lovells
Catherine E. Stetson
Washington, DC
for Appellants
{¶1} Plaintiff, the personal representative of the wrongful death estate of Esther Collado sued Defendants Fiesta Park Healthcare, LLC d/b/a Medical Resort at Fiesta Park (the Medical Resort), Enchanted Health Development, LLC (Enchanted), and WW Management, LLC (WWM), asserting that they were negligent in the care they provided for Mrs. Collado. The jury found that each of the Defendants were negligent and caused injury or damages to Mrs. Collado and allocated a percentage of the negligence to each Defendant. The jury also found that Defendants were engaged in a joint venture.
{¶2} After entry of judgment on the jury's verdict, Defendants filed a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL), or in the alternative a new trial, on the joint venture claim. The district court determined that the evidence did not support the jury instruction on joint venture and granted Defendants' motion. The district court did not, however, order a new trial. Instead, the district court amended the judgment "to eliminate the provisions imposing joint and several liability on Defendants for Plaintiff's claims against them."
{¶3} Plaintiff and Defendants each appeal the district court's ruling on the posttrial JMOL. Plaintiff argues that the district court erred in granting the motion for JMOL, while Defendants argue that the district court erred in not also ordering a new trial.
Defendants additionally appeal the district court's admission of expert testimony and the evidence supporting aspects of the jury's verdict. We reverse the district court's order granting the JMOL, affirm all other aspects of district court's rulings, and remand for entry of judgment reflecting the jury's verdict.
{¶4} Eighty-eight-year-old Mrs. Collado was admitted to the Medical Resort, a skilled nursing facility, from June 25, 2013 to July 31, 2013, following hip surgery. When Mrs. Collado returned home and her stockings were removed, she had wounds that looked like "a giant, purple, red plum" on both heels. A few days later, a certified wound nurse assessed the wounds and determined that Mrs. Collado had sustained a deep tissue injury (DTI) on both heels. The wounds had extensive necrotic tissue that required frequent and painful debridement treatments and cleaning. Mrs. Collado's health deteriorated, and she died on May 26, 2015.
{¶5} Plaintiff brought a wrongful death lawsuit against, in relevant part, the Medical Resort, Enchanted, and WWM and alleged that Defendants were engaged in a joint venture/enterprise while Mrs. Collado was a patient at the Medical Resort. Trial began in January 2019. At trial, Plaintiff presented expert testimony to connect the DTIs Mrs. Collado developed with her death approximately two years later. Dr. Joyce Black, Ph.D., testified that the wounds were likely visible by the time Mrs. Collado was discharged, given that the wounds were at least ninety-six hours old and likely developed because she was not repositioned for "a good six, eight hours, if not longer." Dr. Richard Dupee, M.D., testified that the DTIs led to various medical complications and deconditioning, which shortened Plaintiff's life expectancy and was a cause of her death.
Because Defendants' joint and several liability arose from the jury's finding that they had engaged in a joint venture, the district court amended the judgment to eliminate joint and several liability, but left intact the jury's individual liability findings against each entity. The parties appeal.
{¶7} On appeal and cross-appeal, the parties raise the following issues: (1) whether the district court properly granted the posttrial JMOL on the joint venture claim; (2) whether the district court afforded Defendants the proper remedy after granting JMOL; (3) whether the evidence supported the jury's verdict that found Enchanted and WWM individually liable for a portion of the fault; and (4) whether evidence supporting causation was admissible and sufficient. Because we conclude that the evidence supported the jury's joint venture verdict, we do not address the second issue-the question of remedy. We therefore consider the first, third, and fourth issues in turn.
Rhein v. ADT Auto., Inc., 1996-NMSC-066, ¶ 25, 122 N.M. 646, 930 P.2d 783 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We review de novo the district court's grant of Defendants' motion for JMOL. See Williams v. Mann, 2017-NMCA-012, ¶ 25, 388 P.3d 295.
{¶9} A motion for JMOL "is an objection to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury's verdict." Perez v. City of Albuquerque, 2012-NMCA-040, ¶ 11, 276 P.3d 973 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The district court concluded, and Defendants argue on appeal, that Plaintiff's evidence did not support the elements of a joint venture between the Medical Resort, Enchanted, and WWM. We turn first to the elements required to establish a joint venture, followed by the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the joint venture claim.
{¶10} This Court "measure[s] the sufficiency of the evidence against the jury instructions given." State v. Notah, 2022-NMCA-005, ¶ 7, 503 P.3d 418, cert. denied (S-1-SC-39016). While the parties dispute whether the jury should have received the joint venture instruction, they do not dispute that the instruction given was a correct statement of the law. The jury instructions are therefore the law of the case, see Velasquez v. Regents of N. N.M. Coll., 2021-NMCA-007, ¶ 8, 484 P.3d 970, and we begin with the joint venture instruction given by the district court.
A joint venture is formed when the parties agree to combine their money, property or time for conducting a particular business venture and agree to share jointly in profits and losses, with the right of mutual control over the business enterprise or over the property. A partnership or joint venture may be created or implied by the conduct of the parties. Joint ventures[] may delegate responsibility and control between themselves.
See Quirico v. Lopez, 1987-NMSC-070, ¶ 9, 106 N.M. 169, 740 P.2d 1153 (). It is the role of the fact-finder, in contemplating a joint venture, "to ascertain the intention of the parties as disclosed by their acts in connection with the entire transaction." Id. ¶ 10. In the posttrial motion for JMOL, Defendants argued that the three entities did not have a mutual right to control and that Enchanted and WWM did not have "a right to share in the profits or duty to share in any loss[es]." Based on the analysis in Wirth v. Sun Healthcare Group, Inc., 2017-NMCA-007, 389 P.3d 295, the district court ruled that the trial evidence failed to establish a joint venture. We disagree and explain, beginning with Wirth.
{¶11} In Wirth, the jury found that four entities were "joint venturers," and this Court considered whether the joint venture issue should have...
To continue reading
Request your trial