Arrabal v. Crew-Taylor12/3/2004
event.
46. As a direct result of the efendants' failure to fully inform Mr. and Mrs. Taylor of the true nature of Che Taylor's condition (that it reflected fetal hypoxia and/or asphyxia), and in failing to inform Mr. and Mrs. Taylor of the alternative course of treatment consisting of timely delivering their babies, Mr. and Mrs. Taylor prolonged Mrs. Taylor's pregnancy, resulting in the damages alleged in Paragraphs 29 through 31 and Paragraph 35 of this Complaint.
At the conclusion of a six-day trial, the jury was required to answer several questions. The verdict sheet, as completed by the jury, read:
1. Do you find, by a preponderance of evidence, that the efendant, PEDRO ARRABAL, M.D., breached the standard of care in his care and treatment of laintiffs, TRACY CREW-TAYLOR and CHE TAYLOR?
YES X NO
If your answer to Question 1 is "YES", proceed to Question 2.
If your answer to Question 1 is "NO", proceed to Question 3.
2. Do you find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the efendant's, PEDRO ARRABAL, M.D., breach in the standard of care was a proximate cause of an injury to the laintiffs, TRACY CREW-TAYLOR, CHARLES TAYLOR, and CHE TAYLOR?
YES X NO
Proceed to Question 3.
3. Do you find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the efendant, PEDRO ARRABAL, M.D., failed to obtain an informed consent from the laintiff, TRACY CREW-TAYLOR?
YES X NO
If your answer to Question 3 is "YES", proceed to Question 4.
If your answer to Question 3 is "NO", and Question 1 was "NO" stop and inform the Clerk.
If your answer to Question 3 is "NO", and Question 2 was "YES", proceed to Questions 5A, 5B, & 5C.
If your answer to Question 3 is "NO", and Question 2 was "NO", stop and inform the Clerk.
4. Do you find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the efendant's, PEDRO ARRABAL, M.D., failure to obtain an informed consent from the laintiff, TRACY CREW- TAYLOR, was the proximate cause of injuries claimed to have been sustained?
YES x NO
If your answer to Question 4 is "YES", proceed to Question 5B only. If your answer to Question 4 is "NO", and Question 1 was "NO", stop and inform the Clerk. If your answer to Question 4 is "NO", and Question 2 was "YES", proceed to Questions 5A, 5B & 5C. If your answer to Question 4 is "NO", and Question 2 was "NO", stop and inform the Clerk.
5. In what amount, if any, do you find damages for the Plaintiffs, TRACY CREW-TAYLOR, CHARLES TAYLOR and CHE TAYLOR for:
A. Claims of the Estate of CHE TAYLOR:
Past Medical Expenses $636,414.90
Funeral Expenses $6,651.00 Non-Economic Damages: (pain and suffering, and other non-pecuniary damages) $200,000.00
B. Claims for TRACY CREW-TAYLOR
-0- /s/LDC
Past Medical Expenses $636,414.90 10/24/02
Non-Economic Damages: (pain and suffering, mental anguish, and other non-pecuniary damages) $1,400,000.00
C. Claims for CHARLES TAYLOR
Non-Economic Damages: (pain and suffering, mental anguish, and other non-pecuniary damages) $150,000.00
2,393,065.90 /s/LDC
TOTAL OF DAMAGES $2,036,414.90 10/24/02
Upon review of a post judgment motion filed by the defendants, the trial judge reduced Mrs. Crew-Taylor's non-economic damage award from 1.4 million dollars to $778,837.50 and reduced Charles Taylor's non- economic damages to $83,662.50. These reductions were mandated by Maryland's "cap statute," which is found in Se
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Maryland Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|