Morava v. Central Oklahoma Medical Group3/27/2001
Modified: 06/29/2001
Mandate Issued: 06/27/2001
__ P.3d __
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA HONORABLE DANIEL L. OWENS, TRIAL JUDGE
AFFIRMED
The trial court defendant, Central Oklahoma Medical Group, Inc. (COMG), appeals a judgment in favor of the trial court plaintiff, Betty Carolyn Morava, (Morava) awarding her prejudgment interest on the entire verdict, rather than reducing the interest by taking into account the amount paid by settling co-defendants.
BACKGROUND
This case comes before this Court on a single issue presented by an agreed statement of the record.
Morava filed a medical malpractice action against COMG and the other defendants. The case was tried to a jury with COMG as defendant. COMG requested a jury interrogatory, which was given, asking whether the co-defendants were negligent. The jury found the co-defendants to be negligent and that their negligence contributed to the damages suffered. In addition, the jury returned a verdict for $1,500,000.00. The verdict was returned on March 31, 2000, accepted by the trial court without objection, and the jury was discharged.
Prior to trial and verdict, the defendants other than COMG settled and paid Morava the sum of $1,000,000.00. The settlement checks were tendered on March 31, 2000, the same day as the verdict was returned.
The trial court assessed prejudgment interest on the total amount of the verdict. This amounted to $889,315.89. This sum was added to the verdict for a total judgment of $2,389,315.89 plus uncontested costs of $9,898.95. Then, the $1,000,000.00 paid by the co-defendants was credited, leaving a net judgment against COMG of $1,399,214.84.
COMG appeals because it contends that the trial court should have deducted the $1,000.000.00 paid by co-defendants before calculating the prejudgment interest. COMG has satisfied all but the contested portion of the judgment, which includes the costs, the $500,000.00 balance on the verdict after credit for the co-defendants' payment, and prejudgment interest on the reduced verdict in the sum of $296,319.00. Thus, the issue here is whether COMG should be liable for prejudgment interest of $889,315.89, as calculated and decreed by the trial court, or the sum of $296,319.00, which would be the interest on the verdict after reduction due to credit from the co-defendants' payment of $1,000,000.00.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
This appeal involves the interpretation and application of 12 O.S. Supp. 1999, §§ 727 (E) and 832(H)(1). Where the facts are not disputed, an appeal presents only a question of law. Baptist Bldg. Corp. v. Barnes, 1994 OK CIV APP 71, 5, 874 P.2d 68, 69. The appellate court has the plenary, independent, and nondeferential authority to re-examine a trial court's legal rulings. Neil Acquisition L.L.C. v. Wingrod Inv. Corp., 1996 OK 125, 932 P.2d 1100, n. 1. Matters involving legislative intent present questions of law which are examined independently and without deference to the trial court's ruling. Salve Regina College v. Russell, 499 U.S. 225, 111 S. Ct. 1217, 113 L. Ed.2d 190 (1991); Keizor v. Sand Springs Ry. Co., 1993 OK CIV APP 98, 5, 861 P.2d 326, 328.
ANALYSIS AND REVIEW
Prejudgment interest is authorized by statute. 12 O.S. Supp. 1999, § 727 (E). In part, the statute provides:
E. f a verdict for damages by reason of personal injuries . . . is accepted by the trial court, the court in rendering judgment shall add interest on the verdict at a rate prescribed pursuant to subsection I of this section from the date the suit r
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Oklahoma Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|