Dodson v. Ferrara
| Citation | 491 S.W.3d 542 |
| Decision Date | 19 April 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. SC 95151,SC 95151 |
| Parties | Jason D. Dodson, and Jason D. Dodson, Jr., a Minor, and Eva Raine Dodson–Lohse, a Minor, and August William Davis Dodson, a Minor, said Minors appearing by their duly appointed Next Friend, Jason D. Dodson, Respondent/Cross–Appellant, v. Robert P. Ferrara, M.D. and Mercy Clinic Heart and Vascular, LLC, Appellants/Cross–Respondents. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
The medical providers were represented by Paul N. Venker and Lisa A. Larkin of Williams Venker & Sanders LLC in St. Louis, (314) 345–5000.
The Dodson family was represented by Maurice B. Graham, Patrick J. Hagerty, Joan M. Lockwood and Kaitlin A. Bridges of Gray, Ritter & Graham PC in St. Louis, (314) 241–5620; and John G. Simon of The Simon Law Firm in St. Louis, (314) 241–2929.
The family of Shannon Dodson (“Plaintiffs”) brought a wrongful death action against defendant healthcare providers (“Defendants”) after Ms. Dodson tragically died as a result of a dissection of her left main coronary artery during a cardiac catheterization
. The jury returned a verdict in the amount of $1,831,155 for economic damages and $9 million for noneconomic damages. The trial court reduced the noneconomic damages to $350,000 pursuant to section 538.210(1).1 Both Plaintiffs and Defendants appeal.
Plaintiffs argue that the section 538.210(1) cap on noneconomic damages does not apply in wrongful death cases in light of Watts v. Lester E. Cox Med. Ctr., 376 S.W.3d 633 (Mo. banc 2012)
, and, further, that imposing the cap only on wrongful death plaintiffs violates the equal protection, right to trial by jury or separation of powers provisions of the Missouri and United States Constitutions.
Plaintiffs also contend that the trial court erred in granting a directed verdict on the issue of aggravating circumstances damages at the close of Defendants' evidence, while Defendants argue that the trial court erred in not granting the motion for directed verdict on aggravating circumstances damages earlier in the case, specifically at the end of Plaintiffs' evidence.
Defendants' other issues on appeal are that the trial court failed to grant their motion for new trial, which concerned the questioning of two defense witnesses, and their motion for a directed verdict on the issue of economic damages, and that the court erroneously gave jury instruction No. 4 advising the jury to not consider insurance benefits.
This Court holds that the section 538.210 noneconomic damages cap does not violate the right to trial by jury in wrongful death cases. This issue was previously resolved in Sanders v. Ahmed, 364 S.W.3d 195 (Mo. banc 2012)
, which controls here. Sanders held that the wrongful death action was not recognized at common law in 1820 in Missouri but is, instead, a statutory creation subject to statutory caps and limitations. Watts does not impact the outcome of this case as Watts involved a claim for personal injury, which was a cause of action recognized at common law and was “not subject to legislative limits on damages” when the constitution was adopted in 1820. 376 S.W.3d at 638–39. As a result, Watts held that the statutory cap on damages violated the right to trial by jury as applied to medical malpractice actions alleging common law personal injury claims. Id. at 640.
Plaintiffs' claim that section 538.210 violates the separation of powers was also rejected by this Court in Sanders, 364 S.W.3d at 204–205
.
Further, the section 538.210 noneconomic damages cap does not violate equal protection as the distinction in the treatment of common law personal injury plaintiffs and wrongful death plaintiffs is a product of this Court's interpretation of the right to trial by jury as driven by the constitutional provisions of this state. See Watts, 376 S.W.3d at 640
, and Sanders, 364 S.W.3d at 202–204.
Plaintiffs also contend that the trial court erred in granting a directed verdict on the issue of aggravating circumstances damages at the close of Defendants' evidence. To make a submissible case for aggravating circumstances damages against healthcare providers, Plaintiffs were required to show that the healthcare providers demonstrated “willful, wanton or malicious misconduct” in their actions causing the damages as alleged in the petition. In light of the actions of the healthcare providers here, the evidence does not clearly and convincingly demonstrate that the healthcare providers acted with complete indifference to or conscious disregard for the safety of Ms. Dodson.
This Court finds no error in Defendants' other issues on appeal.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
The facts of this case are devastating. Shannon Dodson, a 34–year–old wife and mother, sought treatment for shortness of breath at Mercy Hospital St. Louis on February 8, 2011. She was diagnosed with bronchitis
. After a stress echocardiogram indicated that there might be some abnormalities with Ms. Dodson's heart, a heart catheterization was recommended for further evaluation.
Dr. Robert Ferrara performed the heart catheterization
on Ms. Dodson. During the procedure, Ms. Dodson suffered a left main coronary artery dissection, which cut off blood flow to the left anterior descending artery. Dr. Ferrara called for assistance, but no attempt was made to open the artery until approximately 30 minutes after the dissection occurred. Both doctors were unsuccessful in attempting to place a stent in the artery, and Ms. Dodson was transferred to the operating room for emergency surgery more than 45 minutes after Dr. Ferrara first noticed the dissection. The surgery was also unsuccessful, and Ms. Dodson died as a result of the dissection.
Ms. Dodson's spouse, Jason Dodson, and their three children sued Dr. Ferrara and his employer, Mercy Clinic Heart and Vascular, LLC, alleging that Dr. Ferrara's negligent care and treatment of Ms. Dodson caused or contributed to cause her death. They also sought aggravating circumstances damages.
The case was tried to a jury. At the close of all the evidence, the trial court gave a directed verdict in favor of Defendants on the claim for aggravating circumstances damages. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiffs on their negligence claim and assessed damages in the amount of $305,737 for past economic damages, $1,525,418 for future economic damages, $1 million in past noneconomic damages, and $8 million in future noneconomic damages.
After judgment was entered, both parties filed numerous post-trial motions. The trial court granted Defendants' motion to reduce the $9 million noneconomic damages award to $350,000 pursuant to section 538.210.1. Both parties appealed. Because Plaintiffs raise constitutional challenges to a state statute that are real and substantial, this Court has exclusive appellate jurisdiction.2 Mo. Const. art. V, section 3
.
Plaintiffs' first three points on appeal argue that the noneconomic damages cap in section 538.210 is unconstitutional. The interpretation of a statute is a question of law and is reviewed de novo. In re Care & Treatment of Coffman, 225 S.W.3d 439, 442 (Mo. banc 2007)
. Constitutional challenges to a statute are also issues of law that this Court reviews de novo.
State v. Young, 362 S.W.3d 386, 390 (Mo. banc 2012).
In their final point on appeal, Plaintiffs claim that the trial court should not have granted a directed verdict on the issue of aggravating circumstances damages. Defendants also raise claims relating to the deferral or overruling of their motions for directed verdicts. The standard of review for a trial court's decision to grant or overrule a motion for a directed verdict is whether the plaintiff made a submissible case. Investors Title Co., Inc. v. Hammonds , 217 S.W.3d 288, 296, 299 (Mo. banc 2007)
. A case may not be submitted unless each and every fact essential to liability is predicated upon legal and substantial evidence. Id. at 299. When conducting its review, this Court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff is given the benefit of all reasonable inferences.
Lasky v. Union Elec. Co., 936 S.W.2d 797, 801 (Mo. banc 1997)
; see also
Keveney v. Missouri Military Academy, 304 S.W.3d 98, 104 (Mo. banc 2010). If the facts are such that reasonable minds could draw differing conclusions, the issue becomes a question for the jury, and a directed verdict is improper. Lasky, 936 S.W.2d at 801. If a party moves for judgment notwithstanding the verdict after a trial court overrules a motion for directed verdict, the jury's verdict will be upheld unless there is a complete absence of probative facts to support the jury's conclusion. Keveney , 304 S.W.3d at 104.
Defendants additionally allege error in the trial court's failure to grant their motion for new trial, which was based in relevant part on the questioning of two defense witnesses. This Court reviews the overruling of a motion for a new trial for abuse of discretion. Kansas City v. Keene Corp., 855 S.W.2d 360, 372 (Mo. banc 1993)
. A new trial is available only when trial error or misconduct of the prevailing party incited prejudice in the jury. Id. Likewise, substantial deference is given to the trial court's determinations regarding the admissibility of evidence, which will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. Id. The trial court abuses its discretion when its ruling is clearly against the logic of the circumstances then before the trial court and is so unreasonable and arbitrary that the ruling shocks the sense of justice and indicates a lack of careful deliberate consideration. Nelson v. Waxman, 9 S.W.3d 601, 604 (Mo. banc 2000).
Finally, Defendants argue that the trial court erred in giving jury instruction No. 4 over Defendants' objections. Whether the jury was properly instructed is a question of law subject to de novo review. Fleshner...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rhoden v. Mo. Delta Med. Ctr.
...that punitive damages are rarely recoverable in negligence actions, as Judge Wilson's dissenting opinion connotes. See also Dodson v. Ferrara , 491 S.W.3d 542, 563 (Mo. banc 2016). Litigants should proceed cautiously when considering submitting punitive damages in future negligence actions ......
-
United States v. State
... ... can be upheld despite the statute's unconstitutional ... parts.” Id. (citing Dodson v ... Ferrara, 491 S.W.3d 542, 558 (Mo. 2016)). First, the ... Court asks “whether, after separating the invalid ... portions, ... ...
-
In re Interest of T.D.S.
...an abuse of discretion." Int. of D.S.H. v. Greene Cnty. Juv. Officer , 562 S.W.3d 366, 369 (Mo. App. S.D. 2018) (quoting Dodson v. Ferrara , 491 S.W.3d 542, 552 (Mo. banc 2016) ). An abuse of discretion exists where "the trial court's ruling is so unreasonable and arbitrary that it shocks t......
-
Karney v. Dep't of Labor & Indus. Relations
...and (2) the remaining statute is one that the legislature would have enacted if it had known that the rescinded portion was invalid. 491 S.W.3d 542, 558 (Mo. banc 2016). Section 105.585(2) was enacted via HB 1413 in 2018. During debate on the house floor, the bill's sponsor indicated the pr......
-
Show Me Your ID: Missouri Voter Identification Laws and the Right to Vote.
...Id. (189.) Id. at 455-59. (190.) Id. at 456. (191.) Id. (quoting MO. REV. STAT. [section] 1.140). (192.) Id. (citing Dodson v. Ferrara, 491 S.W.3d 542, 558 (Mo. (193.) Id. (quoting Dodson v. Ferrara, 491 S.W.3d 542, 558 (Mo. 2016)). (194.) Id. at 455. (195.) Id. at 456-57 (quoting MO. REV. ......
-
Purely a Creature of Statute
...constitution was enacted in 1820, and Missouri also did not recognize a wrongful death cause of action at common law. Dodson v. Ferrara, 491 S.W3d 542 (Mo. banc 2016). [72] Leiker, 245 Kan. at 362. --------- ...