 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Machacek v. Cole7/26/2005
In this appeal from a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), appellant argues that the district court erred by granting respondents' motion for JNOV and that the district court abused its discretion by alternatively granting respondents' motion for a new trial in the event that this court reverses the JNOV. Appellant additionally challenges the district court's denial of her motion to dismiss and her motion for a directed verdict, arguing that respondents' expert-witness affidavit did not meet the requirements of Minn. Stat. ยง 145.682 and that respondents' expert was unqualified to provide an expert opinion. We find that the district court did not err by denying appellant's motion to dismiss and motion for a directed verdict and affirm those decisions. But because we find that the district court erred by granting JNOV and abused its discretion by granting a new trial, we reverse.
FACTS
On May 20, 1999, respondent Jeannie Machacek took her 14-year-old daughter, Allison Machacek, to appellant Dr. Heidi Cole for acne treatment. Dr. Cole is a dermatologist who had treated both Jeannie and Allison Machacek before the May 1999 visit. After Dr. Cole addressed the acne problem, the Machaceks inquired about a wart on Allison's lower left eyelid. Dr. Cole testified that she explained various wart-removal options and that the Machaceks chose to remove the wart with a chemical application.
There is substantial conflicting testimony as to what happened during and after the application of the wart medicine. The parties agree that Jeannie Machacek called Dr. Cole about two hours after the Machaceks left Dr. Cole's office and told Dr. Cole that Allison Machacek was experiencing intense pain around her eye. Dr. Cole testified that she told Jeannie Machacek to take Allison Machacek to the emergency room, but Jeannie Machacek testified that Dr. Cole recommended giving Allison Machacek a pain reliever.
The next day, Jeannie Machacek took Allison Machacek to see a family doctor, and he referred her to an optician, Dr. James Gutfleisch. Dr. Gutfleisch's notes indicate:
This 14 year old is brought in by her grandmother on an urgent basis with a painful red, irritated left eye. She was referred by Dr. Meland for evaluation. Yesterday she applied an anti-wart medication to her lid margin. . . . Patient states she did rinse the eye out but the eye became continually painful throughout the evening.
During this visit, Dr. Gutfleisch diagnosed Allison Machacek as having a 40% corneal abrasion/chemical burn.
Jeannie and John Machacek, individually and on behalf of Allison Machacek, filed a lawsuit against Dr. Cole, alleging four acts of negligent medical treatment: (1) Dr. Cole should have referred Allison Machacek to a specialist because the removal of a wart on the lid margin was outside her area of expertise, (2) Dr. Cole used Canthacur PS on Allison Machacek's face despite warnings from the manufacturer, (3) Dr. Cole allowed wart medication to get into Allison Machacek's eye, and (4) Dr. Cole failed to warn the Machaceks of the risk of serious injury . At trial, they additionally alleged that Dr. Cole should have instructed the Machaceks to take Allison Machacek to the emergency room when Jeannie Machacek called Dr. Cole after the wart-removal procedure.
A jury found Dr. Cole not negligent. Because it determined that Dr. Cole's treatment of Allison Machacek had not fallen below the applicable standard of care, the jury made no findings regarding causation. The Machaceks moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) or, in the alternative, a new trial. The district court granted the Machaceks' motion for JNOV and s
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Minnesota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|