 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Martinmaas v. Engelmann6/28/2000
claims that being examined in the knee-chest position was unnecessary and caused her extreme embarrassment and humiliation.
[ ] As a result of this experience, Froning claimed to have suffered depression and felt uncomfortable about going to Miller. She received counseling between October 1994 and March 1997, and claimed the incident with Engelmann caused memories of childhood sexual abuse to re-surface.
[ ] Engelmann explained he used the knee-chest position in order to get a better view of Froning's cervix and to palpate an ovary. He denied asking her to assume this position for any deviant sexual purpose. However, the two physicians called as expert witnesses refuted Engelmann's justification for using the position. One doctor who had performed over 30,000 pelvic exams in his 34 years of practice testified that he had never used such a position on a patient. He had seen it described in some texts, but understood that it was only sometimes used with pregnant women to facilitate labor, not to facilitate an exam or for any other diagnostic purpose. Another physician provided essentially the same opinion, additionally testifying that there would be no medical reason to use the knee-chest position on a non-pregnant woman, and that the use of such a position would be unusual and should have at least been documented in the patient's records.
[ ] At the close of Plaintiffs' case-in-chief and at the close of all the evidence, Engelmann moved the court for a directed verdict, based on his contention that evidence presented related to intentional torts rather than negligence. The court denied both motions. This argument was also the basis for Engelmann's motion for judgment n.o.v., which was likewise denied.
[ ] The jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiffs, and each was awarded $450,000. Additionally, Bertsch's and Froning's husbands were each awarded $50,000.
[ ] Engelmann now appeals the jury's verdict, raising the following issues:
1. Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying Engelmann's motions for directed verdict and judgment n.o.v.?
2. Did the trial court abuse its discretion in consolidating Plaintiffs' cases for trial?
3. Was it prejudicial error to allow Plaintiffs to obtain and make use of the transcript from Engelmann's medical license re-application hearing?
4. Was it prejudicial error to allow Plaintiffs to state that Engelmann was no longer a physician?
DECISION
[ ] 1. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Engelmann's motions for directed verdict and judgment n.o.v.
[ ] We review a trial court's consideration of a motion for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict under the following standard:
A motion for a directed verdict under SDCL 15-6-50(a) questions the legal sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a verdict against the moving party. Upon such a motion, the trial court must determine whether there is any substantial evidence to sustain the action. The evidence must be accepted which is most favorable to the nonmoving party and the trial court must indulge all legitimate inferences therefrom in his favor. If sufficient evidence exists so that reasonable minds could differ, a directed verdict is not appropriate. The trial court's decisions and rulings on such motions are presumed correct and this Court will not seek reasons to reverse.
A motion for judgment n.o.v. is based on and relates back to a directed verdict motion made at the close of all the evidence. SDCL 15-6-50(b). Thus, the grounds asserted in support of the directed verdict motion are brought before
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.
|
|