 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Mitchell v. Haldar8/22/2005
abuse of discretion. A jury verdict is presumed to be correct and "will be upheld unless it is against the 'great weight of the evidence.'" The Delaware Constitution sets forth this Court's standard of review: "on appeal from a verdict of a jury, the finding of the jury, if supported by the evidence, shall be conclusive."
When the trial judge ruled that only the actual amounts paid for Mr. Mitchell's medical treatment could be admitted into evidence, the appellants could have crafted an exhibit that itemized each of the medical services provided and the amount of each payment. In fact, most of the Blue Cross "statements of benefits" had already been provided to Dr. Haldar's attorney. Obviously, sufficient information was available to support the stipulation that the total amount paid for Mr. Mitchell's medical treatments was $37,997.27.
Instead of an itemization, however, the appellants decided to present the jury with a lump sum for the total costs of Mr. Mitchell's medical treatments. This was consistent with the appellants' contention that all of the medical problems sustained by Mr. Mitchell following the appendectomy were proximately caused by Dr. Haldar's negligence. Clearly, the appellants wanted the total amount of Mr. Mitchell's medical expenses to be the starting point for the jury's verdict. Although it did not succeed, that was an eminently reasonable trial strategy.
The expenses for each of the medical services incurred by Mr. Mitchell were admissible evidence based upon the testimony of the appellants' expert, Dr. Rodgers. Whether the need for each of those medical services was proximately caused by Dr. Haldar's negligence, however, was a factual determination for the jury to make. The jury's verdict reflects a conclusion that, at most, only a small portion of Mr. Mitchell's subsequent medical treatment was proximately caused by Dr. Haldar's negligence.
The trial judge properly concluded that the jury's verdict was supported by the evidence. The appellant has not shown that the jury's decision to award Mr. Mitchell damages in an amount that was approximately one-third of the $38,000 in medical expenses introduced at trial would have changed if his medical bills in the entire amount of $58,000 had properly been admitted into evidence. Accordingly, given the record before the trial court, we find no abuse of discretion in its denial of the appellants' motion for a new trial.
Conclusion
The judgments of the Superior Court are affirmed.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Delaware Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|