Gibson v. Bossier City General Hosp.

• Decision Date: 26 November 1991
• Docket Number: Nos. 22693-C,23002-CA,s. 22693-C
• Citation: 594 So.2d 1332
• Parties: Glenda A. GIBSON and James Sheppard, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BOSSIER CITY GENERAL HOSPITAL, et al., Defendants-Appellees. 594 So.2d 1332
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

Page 1332

594 So.2d 1332

Glenda A. GIBSON and James Sheppard, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BOSSIER CITY GENERAL HOSPITAL, et al Defendants-Appellees.

Nos. 22693-CA, 23002-CA.

594 So.2d 1332

Court of Appeal of Louisiana Second Circuit.

Nov. 26, 1991.

Larry Johnson, Shreveport, Gary L. Boland, Baton Rouge, Robert S. Cooper, Jr., Port Haywood, for plaintiffs-appellants, Glenda A. Gibson and James Sheppard.

Cook, Yancy, King & Galloway by Samuel W. Caverlee, Cynthia C. Anderson, Shreveport, for defendant-appellee, Dr. A.L. Wedgeworth.

Mayer, Smith & Roberts by Paul R. Mayer, Sr., Paul R. Mayer, Jr., Shreveport, for defendant-appellee, Dr. Gerald Dzurik.

Lunn, Irion, Johnson, Salley & Carlisle by Gerald M. Johnson, Shreveport, for defendants-appellees, State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. and Nancy Darland.

Watson, Blanche, Wilson & Posner by Randall L. Champagne, Baton Rouge, for defendant-appellee, Bossier City General Hospital.

Before SEXTON, BROWN and STEWART, JJ.

BROWN, Judge.

Resolution of this appeal entails an examination of the correct standards to be applied by a trial court in deciding whether to set aside a jury's verdict as contrary to the weight of the evidence. The specific issues in this medical malpractice action are the trial court's denial of plaintiffs' motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) and for a new trial. Both motions challenged the quality of the jury's judgment.

Plaintiffs, Glenda Gibson and James Sheppard, filed this lawsuit claiming that the death of their child, Derrell Wayne Sheppard, was caused by the negligence of defendants. Plaintiff, Glenda Gibson, entered Bossier City General Hospital (BCGH) to give birth. The baby was overdue and born by Cesarean Section on May 14, 1980. Plaintiffs claim that the applicable standards for neonatal care were breached by defendants resulting in immediate injuries and the eventual death of the child seventeen months later. The petition named as defendants the treating pediatricians, Drs. A.L. Wedgeworth and Gerald Dzurik, BCGH, Nancy Darland, R.N., and her insurer, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company.

At the conclusion of a lengthy jury trial, a verdict was returned in favor of defendants. The first interrogatory in the special verdict form was whether any defendant was negligent and, as to each defendant, the jury's answer was "no". Having found that defendants were not negligent, the jury never answered the question of whether the death was caused by the acts of defendants.

Plaintiffs filed motions for JNOV and for a new trial. The trial court denied these motions finding that this verdict could have been reached by reasonable men and women. We conclude that the trial court properly denied the JNOV and did not abuse its discretion in finding that the verdict was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence.

In exercising our appellate review function, we are cognizant of the trial court's unique and advantageous position to observe the events at the trial and thus better assess the evidence and jury's verdict. This is a case in which the jury was faced with sharply conflicting expert testimony on the negligence issue which it resolved in defendants' favor. In evaluating the decision of the trial court in denying the motions, we recognize that it is the province of the jury to resolve conflicting inferences from the evidence. Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840 (La.1989); Dawson v. Clark, 564 So.2d 1291 (La.App. 2d Cir.1990).

The inherent power of the trial court to set aside a jury's verdict and either grant judgment or order a new trial focuses on the desire to provide every litigant with substantial justice. The power is broad to ensure that justice is done but the proper standards for setting aside a jury's verdict are elusive and defy precise definition. Nevertheless, a close examination of the jurisprudence reveals principles that assist in identifying the boundaries for evaluating such motions.

Although LSA-C.C.P. Art. 1811 sets forth the rules governing a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the standards have developed jurisprudentially. The JNOV is a question of whether the jury verdict, as a matter of law, is supported by any legitimate or substantial evidence. The finding that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law requires that there was no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead rational men and women to the conclusion reached by the jury. The test is harsh because a finding that a verdict is not supported by any substantial evidence leads to a directed verdict terminating the action without resubmission to another jury. In applying this standard, the trial court may not substitute its judgment of the facts for that of the jury and must consider all the evidence in the light most advantageous to the party in whose favor the jury verdict was rendered, giving to this party the benefit of every legitimate and reasonable inference that could have been drawn from the evidence. Scott v. Hospital Service District No. 1, 496 So.2d 270 (La.1986); Willis v. Louisiana Power & Light Company, 524 So.2d 42 (La.App. 2d Cir.1988), writ denied, 525 So.2d 1059 (La.1988).

On the other hand, the denial of a motion for new trial is discretionary with the trial court and should not be reversed unless there has been an abuse of that discretion. Freeman v. Freeman, 552 So.2d 636 (La.App. 2d Cir.1989); Willis v. Louisiana Power & Light Company, supra. The motion for a new trial requires a less stringent test than for a JNOV as such a determination involves only a new trial and does not deprive the parties of their right to have all disputed issues resolved by a jury. Whether to grant a new trial requires a discretionary balancing of many factors.

The ground asserted for a new trial in the instant case is that the verdict was clearly contrary to the law and the evidence. LSA-C.C.P. Art. 1972. Even when a JNOV is denied the trial court could still grant a motion for new trial. Willis, supra. The mere fact that some evidence created a factual issue that prevented the granting of a JNOV does not deprive the trial court of the power to intervene by granting a new trial in an appropriate case. The fact that a determination on a motion for new trial involves judicial discretion, however, does not imply that the trial court can freely interfere with any verdict with which it disagrees. The discretionary power to grant a new trial must be exercised with considerable caution for a successful litigant is entitled to the benefits of a favorable jury verdict. Fact-finding is the province of the jury and a trial court must not overstep its duty in overseeing the administration of justice and unnecessarily usurp the jury's responsibility. A motion for new trial solely on the basis of being contrary to the evidence is directed squarely at the accuracy of the jury's factual determinations and must be viewed in that light. Thus the jury's verdict should not be set aside if it is supportable by any fair interpretation of the evidence. Willis, supra.

Although the language is similar between the standards for a JNOV and new trial, there is a real difference between a finding that no evidence existed for a rational jury to reach a particular result and a finding that a jury could not have reached its conclusion on any fair interpretation of the evidence. A JNOV is required when there is no bona fide factual issue, while it is the existence of a factual issue which justifies the granting of a new trial rather than a directed verdict.

The scales are clearly tilted in favor of the survival of the jury's verdict but the trial court is left with a breadth of discretion which varies with the facts and events of each case. What the appellate court reviews is the decision of the judicial participant in the trial who has attempted to balance the great deference afforded to the jury's verdict against its obligation to insure that substantial justice was accomplished. Our review is limited to whether manifest error was committed by the trial court in its denial of the motions. Bellard v. CNA Insurance Company, 503 So.2d 1104 (La.App. 3d Cir.1987).

Applying these principles we conclude that the trial court did not commit manifest error in its denial of the motions for JNOV and new trial.

In a medical malpractice action, plaintiff carries a two-fold burden of proof. Plaintiff must first establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the treatment fell below the ordinary standard of care expected in that medical specialty and then establish a causal relationship between the alleged negligent acts and the injury. LSA-R.S. 9:2794; Martin v. East Jefferson General Hospital, 582 So.2d 1272 (La.1991).

An unsuccessful course of treatment is not per se an indication of malpractice. The doctor's conduct is evaluated in terms of reasonableness under the circumstances existing when his professional judgment was exercised. The physician will not be held to a standard of perfection nor evaluated with benefit of hindsight. Opinions from medical professionals are necessary to the determination of the applicable standard of care and if that standard was breached. The views and opinions of these expert witnesses, though not controlling, are persuasive. It is for the trier of fact to evaluate conflicting expert opinions in relation to all the circumstances of the case. Stein v. Insurance Corporation of America, 566 So.2d 1114 (La.App. 2d Cir.1990), writ denied, 569 So.2d 984 (La.1990); Maxwell v. Soileau, 561 So.2d 1378 (La.App. 2d Cir.1990), writs denied, 567 So.2d 1123 (La.1990) and 567 So.2d 1124 (La.1990); Ogletree v. Willis-Knighton Memorial Hospital, 530 So.2d 1175 (La.App. 2d Cir.1988), writ denied, 532 So.2d 133 (La.1988); Douzart v. Jones, 528 So.2d 602 (La.App. 2d Cir.1988); Jackson v. Huang, 514 So.2d 727 (La.App. 2d Cir.1987), writs denied, 518 So.2d 1050 (La.1988) and 519 So.2d 119 (La.1988); ...