 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Black v. Yuja3/25/2003
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
Appellants Raouf E. Yuja, M.D., and Raouf E. Yuja, M.D., Inc., challenge a judgment in favor of Danny and Jacob Black on the Blacks' complaint for the wrongful death of Glori Black, who died of cancer. In a cross-appeal from the same judgment, the Blacks contend that the trial court erroneously declined to permit them to present an alternative theory of recovery to the jury. We reverse the judgment, remand for further proceedings, and dismiss the cross-appeal.
RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On December 10, 1999, the Blacks filed their complaint for the wrongful death of Glori Black against Dr. Yuja, as well as numerous other doctors and health care providers. The complaint asserted several claims, including a claim for medical malpractice against Dr. Yuja. In pertinent part, the complaint alleged that Glori Black was the wife of Danny Black and the mother of Jacob Black, and that she died on December 12, 1998, as the result of the negligence of Dr. Yuja and other defendants. Raouf E. Yuja, M.D., Inc., was named as a Doe defendant on September 6, 2000.
Before trial, the Blacks' action against the defendants other than Dr. Yuja and his professional corporation were submitted to arbitration or resolved in other ways. Trial by jury on their remaining claim against Dr. Yuja and his professional corporation began on May 30, 2001.
At trial, the Blacks presented evidence that in October 1997, Dr. Yuja, who is a pathologist, misclassified an ovarian tumor that was removed from Glori Black, and as a result, she did not begin aggressive cancer therapy until April 1998, when the cancer had spread throughout her body. On June 8, 2001, the jury returned a special verdict in favor of the Blacks and awarded them $835,025 in damages. Judgment was entered in accordance with this verdict on June 19, 2001, and the trial court subsequently denied a motion for a new trial by Dr. Yuja and his professional corporation.
DISCUSSION
I.
Appellants contend that (1) the trial court failed to give appropriate instructions concerning causation, (2) the special verdict form was defective, and (3) the trial court erred in dismissing a juror during the jury's deliberations.
A. Instruction on Causation
Appellants contend the trial court failed to instruct the jury adequately on causation when the jury requested clarification on this issue during its deliberations.
Generally, "it is the responsibility of the trial court to instruct the jury on the controlling legal principles applicable to the case" (Roberts v. City of Los Angeles (1980) 109 Cal.App.3d 625, 632), and "a litigant is entitled to instructions on every theory advanced by [the litigant] which is supported in the pleadings and evidence. [Citations.]" (Anderson v. Latimer (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 667, 674.) However, "if the court gives an instruction correct in law, but the party complains that it is too general, lacks clarity, or is incomplete, he must request the additional or qualifying instruction in order to have the error reviewed." (7 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1997) Trial, ยง 272, p. 319, italics deleted.) " n deciding whether the trial court erred in refusing [a party's] requested instruction, the evidence should be viewed in a light most favorable to [the party]. [Citation.] If the evidenc
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|