Hayes v. Cha, Civil No. 00-1101(JBS).
| Decision Date | 29 September 2004 |
| Docket Number | Civil No. 00-1101(JBS). |
| Parties | Mary I. HAYES, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Dong S. CHA, M.D., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
Frank D. Allen, Esquire, Patrick M. Flynn, Esquire, Archer & Greiner, P.C., Haddonfield, NJ, for Plaintiffs Mary and Edward Hayes.
Louis J. Dughi, Jr., Esquire, Robert W. Donnelly, Jr., Esquire, Dughi, Hewit & Palatucci, P.C., Marlton, NJ, for Defendant Dong S. Cha, M.D.
Presently before the court is the defendant's motion for a new trial or in the alternative for remittitur pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(a). Also before the court is the plaintiffs' motion to amend the judgment order to include prejudgment interest pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). The court has rarely witnessed a suit fraught with such complexity, both factual and procedural, as was the medical malpractice suit brought by Mary I. Hayes and her husband, Edward J. Hayes. The complexity derived in part from the difficulty in diagnosing Mrs. Hayes's malady, a diagnosis which was not obtained until nearly two years following the suit's inception. The case chronicled an odyssey of epic proportions borne principally by the Hayes: the lengths to which Mr. and Mrs. Hayes went to discover the source of Mrs. Hayes's injury and the suffering that she and her husband endured throughout the litigation and into today and tomorrow. The jury was apprised of the Hayes's travails and awarded them $20 million in compensation for their suffering. The validity of the jury's finding and the propriety of that award, as well as certain of this court's evidentiary rulings, are at issue in the instant motions.
After having carefully considered the submissions of the parties, the trial testimony, and the relevant jurisprudence, the court shall deny the defendant's motion for a new trial on liability, grant in part the defendant's motion for a remittitur, remitting the verdict from $15 million dollars to $10 million dollars in favor of Mrs. Hayes, and from $5 million dollars to $1 million dollars in favor of Mr. Hayes, and grant in part the plaintiffs' motion for prejudgment interest. Should the plaintiffs not accept the court's remittitur, the court shall grant in part the defendant's motion for a new trial and order a new trial on damages only.
On March 7, 2000, Edward and Mary Hayes filed suit against Dr. Dong S. Cha alleging that Dr. Cha committed medical malpractice and failed to supply Mary Hayes with sufficient information to constitute informed consent in connection with the full face-lift plastic surgery performed on Mary Hayes on September 22, 1995. Mr. Hayes asserted a loss of consortium claim. Jurisdiction was based on diversity of citizenship. The trial in the above matter occurred on December 1-5 and 8, 2003 and the instant motions followed. The parties briefed the issues through April 2004. The defendant objects to the verdict and asserts that a new trial is warranted on several grounds: (1) that the overwhelming weight of the evidence negates any reasonable finding of causation between the 1995 surgery and the October 2001 diagnosis of mycobacterium fortuitum; (2) that the plaintiffs failed to carry their burden on informed consent; (3) that the court erred by allowing cross-examination of Dr. Cha with a $50 check which had not been produced in discovery, by allowing cross-examination of Dr. Cha with sterilization standards promulgated in 1998, and by allowing the plaintiffs to exploit the court's ruling regarding the defendant's motion in limine to preclude reference to Dr. Cha's two-month active suspension; and (4) that the jury award shocks the conscience requiring, at the very least, a new trial on damages or a remittitur. The plaintiffs oppose the defendant's motion, asserting that the jury's verdict was reasonable both on liability and on damages. The plaintiffs further maintain that the court did not commit error during the trial. These arguments require a complete review of the evidence presented to the jury.
Beginning with the opening statement through the closing, the plaintiffs delivered a focused and complete explanation of Mrs. Hayes's injury. The plaintiffs called Mr. Hayes as their first witness. Mr. Hayes's testimony outlined the entire theory of the plaintiffs' case. He was a very credible witness, who observed not only his wife's illness during the course of their day-to-day life, but who attended nearly every one of his wife's doctor appointments with her during the critical period. Mr. Hayes spoke about their life together and how it has changed since the surgery. He also spoke knowledgeably about the development of his wife's illness, their search for the cause, the myriad doctors and diagnoses and treatments, the final accurate diagnosis of mycobacterium fortuitum, and the treatment of that illness.
Mr. Hayes, a lawyer who splits his practice between general corporate representation and professional baseball player representation, testified about the Hayes's life before the surgery:
Our life was good at the time. Her health was good. We had a very active life. We vacationed generally twice a year. We would travel to Florida in March each year for my — for the baseball portion of my practice to meet with clientele in Florida. My wife would host a party for the players and their parents at Christmas time each year, we always thought it was a good idea for them to get together with one another, for parents to speak to one another. We would host a picnic every year, it used to be called the Hayes Annual Picnic on the Fourth of July where we would have people over. Go out to dinner regularly. Although I'm not a big gambler, we made it a habit of going to the casino to see a show or gamble once a month. We were both very, very active. She at the time was very active with painting and sculpting. After she had stopped working, she had returned to the Moore College of Art and Design for art, which was something that she always wanted to do. So, we had a very active life.
(T. 219:7-25). This testimony was corroborated by two of the Hayes's family friends, Denise Manto and Orlando Terry Anderson. Ms. Manto, a good friend of the Hayes and the wife of one of the baseball players whom Mr. Hayes represents, testified that Mary was the life of the party, very social, an artist, and very instrumental in getting the local players and their families together and in supporting them. (T. 411-412, 415). Mr. Anderson indicated that he was Mary's best friend, and that before the surgery they would see each other, either singly or with their spouses, socially about once a week. He also described Mrs. Hayes as the life of the party. (T. 420).
Mr. Hayes also testified about his wife's health problems before the surgery, which he described as minimal: (T. 220:1-9).
Mr. Hayes further testified about Mrs. Hayes's September 22, 1995, surgery by Dr. Cha, all of which testimony Mrs. Hayes corroborated on the record. On the date, given the extensive nature of the full face-lift surgery, Mrs. Hayes was nervous. Indeed, Dr. Cha had prescribed valium for her to calm her nerves before the surgery. Mr. Hayes recalled that Mrs. Hayes did not want to have to wait at the doctor's office for the surgery to begin, so they were scheduled as the first surgery, early in the morning, "eight or nine o'clock." (T. 220:15-19). Mrs. Hayes was not, however, the first surgery performed that day. Upon arrival, the Hayes were told that there was an emergency liposuction and they would have to wait. (T. 221:13-16). Mrs. Hayes was not taken in for surgery until around 11:30 or 12 noon. (T. 221:18-21).
According to Dr. Cha's testimony, his usual practice is to meet with the patient before the surgery, but Mr. Hayes testified that Dr. Cha did not meet with the Hayes before the surgery that morning. (T. 221:22-222:1). During the surgery, however, Dr. Cha or his anesthetist (Mr. Hayes was not certain which), came to Mr. Hayes and explained that during the course of the surgery, the doctor had "noticed a growth" on Mrs. Hayes's nose: (T 222:7-16). Later tests revealed that the growth was not cancerous. (T. 222:18-19).
After the surgery, Mr. Hayes testified, he attended several of his wife's post-operative appointments with Dr. Cha. Mr. Hayes further testified that "[s]hortly after the surgery, she developed a redness along the left jawline." (T. 223:12-13). He also recalled an appointment on October 31, 1995, where his wife had a complaint about her earlobe being swollen and red. Mr. Hayes testified that he attended one more appointment after the October 31 appointment and that "[t]here was redness in the jaw" and "lumps under her neck." (T. 223-24). Dr. Cha stated that such redness and swelling was not unusual, and he prescribed a cream, which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Burdyn v. Old Forge Borough
...n. 57 (3d ed. 2014) (collecting cases)." Id. As further explained by the D.C. Circuit Court:The district court in Hayes v. Cha, 338 F.Supp.2d 470, 503-04 (D.N.J. 2004), summarized the competing considerations. On the one hand, the district court acknowledged that some circuits, such as the ......
-
Mente Chevrolet Oldsmobile Inc. v. GMAC
...two evils that had threatened civil litigation: expensive and time-consuming pretrial discovery techniques and trial-by-ambush." Hayes, 338 F.Supp.2d at 503. To determine whether such evidence should be admitted, a court must consider the Third Circuit's "fairness" factors for the exclusion......
-
Ford v. Cnty. of Hudson, Civ. No. 07-5002 (KM)
...is not available in federal court, where it is seen as a usurpation of the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial. Hayes v. Cha, 338 F. Supp. 2d 470, 498 (D.N.J. 2004) (citing Gasperini v. Ctr. for Humanities, Inc., 518 U.S. 415, 433, 116 S. Ct. 2211, 2222 ...
-
Braden v. Lockheed Martin Corp.
...and must be so prejudicial that a refusal to grant a new trial would be "inconsistent with substantial justice." Hayes v. Cha, 338 F. Supp. 2d 470, 502 (D.N.J. 2004) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 61). Defendant contends, as it did in its motion in limine, that Hansen's alleged comment should have......
-
The Head-on Collision of Gasperini and the Derailment of Erie: Exposing the Futility of the Accommodation Doctrine
...S.P.A., 289 F.3d 1300, 1306-07 (11th Cir. 2002); Houben v. Telular Corp., 309 F.3d 1028, 1034-36 (7th Cir. 2002); Hayes v. Cha, 338 F. Supp. 2d 470, 491 (D.N.J. 2004); Montgomery v. Karkut Indus. Corp., 259 F. Supp. 2d 952, 953 (E.D. Mo. 2003); Todd v. Roadway Express, Inc., 178 F. Supp. 2d......