 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Harvest v. Craig5/30/2002
AFFIRMED
Doris Harvest, a patient of the defendants, challenges the constitutionality of a statute that requires proof by clear and convincing evidence in certain medical malpractice cases. The defendants argue that any error in the burden of proof was harmless. The patient also challenges the introduction of psychiatric evidence. We hold that the statute is constitutional and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence.
None of the defendants were the patient's usual health care providers. During her third trimester of pregnancy, she experienced contractions and vaginal bleeding. An ambulance brought her to the emergency room of Bullhead Community Hospital ("BCH"), where Dr. Michael T. Craig examined her. During this examination, the patient did not communicate various risk factors for placental abruption, including smoking and drinking during her pregnancy, two prior precipitous deliveries, and two abortions.
Dr. Craig telephoned the patient's obstetrician, Dr. Kirsten Rojas, in Las Vegas. Dr. Craig related that the patient was in the emergency room, was having contractions, and had passed some blood. Dr. Craig also conveyed that the patient was stable, that all vital signs and fetal heart tones were in the normal range, and that BCH had no obstetrical department. Dr. Craig raised the possibility of sending the patient home, but Dr. Rojas instructed him to send her to Valley Hospital in Las Vegas for observation. Dr. Rojas provided no treatment or transfer directions. Dr. Rojas then transmitted a pre-term labor order to Valley Hospital for a stat ultrasound to rule out abruption, a possibility she had not discussed with Dr. Craig. At that time, both physicians were unaware of the patient's psychiatric history.
The patient traveled to Valley Hospital by car with her boyfriend. She later testified that she had experienced severe contractions while en route. Upon arrival at Valley Hospital, she repeatedly refused to consent to any intervention, including an emergency caesarean section. Ultimately, she delivered a stillborn fetus.
The patient filed this wrongful death action. The superior court granted summary judgment for Defendants on the ground that the patient had failed to prove her claim by the clear and convincing evidence standard required by A.R.S. ยง 32-1473. This court reversed because Defendants had failed to establish facts showing that the statute's enhanced burden of proof applied. Harvest v. Craig, 195 Ariz. 521, 526, 24, 990 P.2d 1080, 1085 (App. 1999).
On remand, the patient sought to exclude her psychiatric history. The superior court admitted the evidence at trial. The court determined that the statutory requirements for the heightened burden of proof were satisfied by the expanded trial record. The court therefore instructed the jury that the patient bore the burden of proving her wrongful death claim by clear and convincing evidence. After the jury returned a unanimous defense verdict, the court entered judgment and denied the patient's motion for new trial. She timely appealed.
We review de novo the trial court's ruling on the statute's constitutionality. Graville v. Dodge, 195 Ariz. 119, 123, 17, 985 P.2d 604, 608 (App. 1999). We presume the statute is constitutional, and the party challenging the statute bears a heavy burden to demonstrate its unconstitutionality. Chevron Chem. Co. v. Super. Ct., 131 Ariz. 431, 438, 641 P.2d 1275, 1282 (1982); Martin v. Reinstein, 195 Ariz. 293, 302, 987 P.2d 779, 788 (App. 1999); 3613 Ltd. v. Dep't of Liquor Licenses & Control, 194 Ariz. 178, 182, 17, 978 P.2d 1282, 1286 (App. 1999).
Page 1 2 3 4 Arizona Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|