Smith v. Henson

• Docket Number: Cum-23-124
• Decision Date: 26 June 2025
• Citation: Smith v. Henson, 2025 ME 55, Cum-23-124 (Me. Jun 26, 2025)
• Parties: ANGELA M. SMITH et al., PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ESTATE OF PETER A. SMITH v. JOHN R. HENSON et al.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

1

2025 ME 55

ANGELA M. SMITH et al., PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ESTATE OF PETER A. SMITH v. JOHN R. HENSON et al.

No. Cum-23-124

Supreme Court of Maine

June 26, 2025

Argued: February 8, 2024

\ Cumberland County Superior Courtdocket number CV-2021-151

Christopher C. Taintor, Esq.(orally), Norman, Hanson &DeTroy, LLC, Portland, for appellantsJohn R. Henson Mercy Hospital, and Eastern Maine Healthcare Systems

Jodi L. Nofsinger, Esq., Sarah K. Hall, Esq., and Alicia F Curtis, Esq.(orally), Berman &Simmons, P.A., Lewiston, for appelleesAngela M. Smith and Richard Smith as Personal Representatives of the Estate of Peter A. Smith

Stephen W. Koerting, Esq., Kelly, Remmel & Zimmerman, Portland, for amicus curiaeMaine Trial Lawyers AssociationRobert P. Hayes, Esq., Maureen M. Sturtevant, Esq., and James P. Spizuoco, Esq., Drummond Woodsum, Portland, for amici curiaeMaine Medical Association, Maine Hospital Association, Maine Osteopathic Association, and Maine Association of Insurance Companies

Panel: STANFILL, C.J., and MEAD, HORTON, CONNORS, LAWRENCE, and DOUGLAS, JJ., and HJELM, A.R.J. ^[*]

Majority: MEAD, HORTON, CONNORS, and LAWRENCE, JJ., and HJELM, A.R.J. Dissent: DOUGLAS, J., and STANFILL, C.J.

HJELM, A.R.J.

[¶1] In this appeal raising a single issue of statutory construction, we are called upon to determine whether a former iteration of Maine's Wrongful Death Act permitted recovery for "pecuniary injuries" even when the decedent, had he lived, would not have provided financial support to any of the people for whose benefit the action was brought.See18-A M.R.S. § 2-804(b)(2017).^[1] When the parties litigated the issue in this action for medical negligence, the Superior Court(Cumberland County, O'Neil, J.) concluded that the statute allowed for such recovery.At the ensuing trial, a jury found the defendants-a physician and two medical entities-liable for failing to properly treat Peter A. Smith, resulting in his death.The damages as determined by the jury included compensation for pecuniary injury to Smith's parents, Angela M. Smith and Richard T. Smith Jr., who were the plaintiffs as co-personal representatives of his estate, even though there was no evidence of any expectation that their son would have provided financial support to them.The court entered a judgment that included an award of damages for pecuniary injuries based on the jury verdict.

[¶2] On this appeal by defendantsJohn R. Henson, Mercy Hospital, and Eastern Maine Healthcare Systems, we hold that the applicable wrongful death statute authorized recovery for pecuniary injury only when the death deprived one or more of the people identified in the statute of prospective financial gain and that damages for such a loss therefore were not available when the loss was asserted only by the estate.For that reason, we vacate the sole portion of the judgment challenged on appeal-the portion awarding damages for pecuniary injury.

I.BACKGROUND

[¶3]We begin with a description of the relevant facts and history of the case, drawn from the case's procedural history and the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the Smiths as the prevailing parties.SeeEst. of Gagnon v. Anthony, 2015 ME 142, ¶ 6, 126 A.3d 1142.

[¶4] Two times, in June of 2017, Peter A. Smith went to Mercy Hospital in Portland because he was suffering from a variety of symptoms, including fever, joint aches, and a skin rash.At each visit, he was seen by the same physician, John R. Henson, M.D.Although Smith's symptoms pointed strongly toward Lyme disease, on each visit Henson diagnosed a different condition and consequently did not provide the medical treatment, which would have included antibiotics, that would have addressed Smith's actual condition.Smith's ailment was later diagnosed correctly as Lyme disease, but as a result of Henson's misdiagnosis and the resulting delay in treatment, Smith developed Lyme carditis, which is caused when bacteria associated with Lyme disease damage the heart muscle and create cardiac inflammation and scarring, resulting in electrical instability.Smith's untreated Lyme disease and the consequent carditis caused his death on July 2, 2017, less than a month after he had first been seen by Henson.

[¶5] In 2021, Peter's parents, Angela M. Smith and Richard T. Smith Jr., as co-personal representatives of their son's estate, filed a three-count complaint against Henson, Mercy Hospital, and Eastern Maine Healthcare Systems (collectively, Henson).^[2] In the complaint, the Smiths sought recovery pursuant to Maine's wrongful death statute, 18-A M.R.S. § 2-804(b), and the survival-of-actions statute, 18-A M.R.S. § 3-817(a)(2017).Among other categories of damages, the Smiths' complaint alleged a loss of future earnings resulting from their son's death.Henson filed a motion for partial summary judgment on that part of the complaint, asserting that section 2-804(b) did not allow the Smiths to recover for pecuniary loss resulting from their son's death because they would not have received any of his prospective earnings.The court denied Henson's motion.In its written order, the court examined the legislative history leading to the version of section 2-804(b) applicable to the case and concluded, on that basis, that the statute^[3] unambiguously allowed a wrongful death plaintiff to obtain judgment for pecuniary injury even when that loss was asserted only by the decedent's estate and the beneficiaries of the judgment did not suffer any actual loss themselves.^[4]

[¶6]The case proceeded to a seven-day jury trial in early 2023.The jury was presented with evidence that, at the time of his death, Smith was a twenty-five-year-old employee of a major international accounting firm and was working toward becoming a certified public accountant.During the trial, there was no evidence that Smith would have provided financial support or assistance to his parents, who were the only people for whose benefit the action was brought-and in fact, Angela Smith testified explicitly that neither she nor her husband had any expectation that their son would have supported either of them financially, but rather she understood he had hoped to have a large family and devote his financial resources to them.

[¶7]The court's instructions to the jury, consistent with its earlier ruling, permitted the jury to consider an award for pecuniary injuries.The jury returned a verdict finding that Henson was negligent in his treatment of Smith.Among the resulting damages found by the jury was $2 million for Smith's loss of future earnings.^[5] Pursuant to the verdict, the court entered a judgment that included those damages.^[6]

[¶8] Here, Henson appeals only from the portion of the judgment entitling the Estate to recover for the pecuniary loss based on Peter Smith's future prospective earnings.^[7] Henson does not challenge the determination that he was liable for Smith's death or the other damages found by the jury and awarded by the court in the judgment.^[8]

II.DISCUSSION

[¶9] At the time relevant to this case, 18-A M.R.S. § 2-804(b) read, in full, as follows:

Every wrongful death action must be brought by and in the name of the personal representative of the deceased person.The amount recovered in every wrongful death action, except as otherwise provided, is for the exclusive benefit of the surviving spouse if no minor children, of the children if no surviving spouse, one-half for the exclusive benefit of the surviving spouse and one-half for the exclusive benefit of the minor children to be divided equally among them if there are both surviving spouse and minor children and to the deceased's heirs to be distributed as provided in [18-A M.R.S. §] 2-106 [(2017)] if there is neither surviving spouse nor minor children.The jury may give damages as it determines a fair and just compensation with reference to the pecuniary injuries resulting from the death and in addition shall give such damages that will compensate the estate of the deceased person for reasonable expenses of medical, surgical and hospital care and treatment and for reasonable funeral expenses.In addition, the jury may give damages not exceeding $500,000 for the loss of comfort, society and companionship of the deceased, including any damages for emotional distress arising from the same facts as those constituting the underlying claim, to the persons for whose benefit the action is brought.The jury may also give punitive damages not exceeding $250,000.An action under this section must be commenced within 2 years after the decedent's death, except that if the decedent's death is caused by a homicide, the action may be commenced within 6 years of the date the personal representative of the decedent discovers that there is a just cause of action against the person who caused the homicide.If a claim under this section is settled without an action having been commenced, the amount paid in settlement must be distributed as provided in this subsection.A settlement on behalf of minor children is not valid unless approved by the court, as provided in Title 14, section 1605.

(Emphasis added.)It is the italicized sentence that is central to this case.

[¶10] The questions presented here are these: Are damages for a pecuniary loss occasioned by a wrongful death-in other words, the loss of future net financial gain that the decedent would have produced-recoverable only if any of the people for whose benefit the action is brought, namely, the people listed in the second sentence of the statute, have suffered that loss?Or are compensatory damages for pecuniary injuries also recoverable if, as here, that loss is asserted by the estate itself?

[¶11]We start our analysis with familiar principles of...