 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Martinmaas v. Engelmann6/28/2000
s when he utilized improper positions, procedures and methods in conducting those examinations." The plaintiffs argue that it is not necessary to reach the question of whether sexual misconduct during a gynecological examination constitutes medical malpractice because their claims were not based solely on sexual misconduct but also on the improper procedures and methods Engelmann used in conducting his exams.
[ ] Engelmann was acquitted of the rape charges against him in his criminal case. In this civil action, he continued to deny any sexual misconduct. He claimed the procedures he used were medically necessary and the plaintiffs simply misperceived his actions. According to him, Bertsch and Martinmaas had a suspicious bodily discharge and during the course of his pelvic exam he used the "gauze procedure" to extract some of the discharge substance. He said the women mistook this procedure for rape. Nonetheless, the jury returned verdicts for the plaintiffs. These general verdicts did not specify whether the jury believed that Bertsch and Martinmaas were raped and that Froning was sexually exploited, or whether the jury only concluded that Engelmann's unorthodox "gauze procedure" and "uterine massage" employed in examining the women fell below the standard of care, as the plaintiffs' experts testified.
[ ] Engelmann conceded that he invented his "gauze procedure." He knew no physician who used it, received no training for it, and cited no medical authority prescribing it. He admitted also that his procedure was a "mistake" and "wrong," but clung to his assertion that it did not violate the standard of care. The medically unnecessary and embarrassing "knee-chest" position Froning was required to assume on two occasions was also a deviation from the standard of care according to the expert witnesses. As for damages, the plaintiffs' experts acknowledged that although painful and humiliating, Engelmann's aberrant medical procedures would leave no permanent physical injuries, but nonetheless the emotional trauma could be significant and long lasting.
[ ] Is it possible that the jurors were unconvinced of the plaintiffs' allegations of sexual misconduct and simply rendered their verdicts based on expert testimony that Engelmann's examinations deviated from the standard of care? Perhaps the large verdicts suggest that the jury believed the worst allegations against Engelmann. But we cannot truly know which theory the jurors accepted. When it comes to reviewing general jury verdicts we have written numerously that if any reason exists to support them, they should be upheld. See Builders Supply Co., Inc. v. Carr, 276 NW2d 252, 257 (SD 1979) (citation omitted).
[ ] Most federal courts adhere to the rule that a general verdict will be upheld only if there is substantial evidence to support each theory of liability submitted to the jury. These courts take the position that, as an appellate court cannot plumb the minds of jurors, a general verdict possibly based on an improper theory of liability must be reversed. Known as the "two-issue rule," it has been endorsed several times by the United States Supreme Court beginning in the Nineteenth Century: "[The verdict's] generality prevents us from perceiving upon which plea they found. If, therefore, upon any one issue error was committed, either in the admission of evidence, or in the charge of the court, the verdict cannot be upheld... ." Maryland v. Baldwin, 112 US 490, 493, 5 SCt 278, 280, 28 LEd 822, 823 (1884). See also Sunkist Growers, Inc. v. Winckler & Smith Citrus Prods. Co., 370 US 19, 29-30, 82 SCt 1130, 1136, 8 LEd2d 305, 312 (1962); United New York & New Jersey Sandy Hook Pilots Ass'n v. Halecki, 358 US 613, 619, 79
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 South Dakota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|