 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Woodward v. Research Medical Center8/23/2005
ife's injuries before death under our survivorship statute. Section 537.020. He also filed a separate, derivative claim as her husband for loss of consortium and to recover medical and pharmaceutical bills. This count of his petition was joined to the allegations in the survivorship action. A claim for lost chance of survival was abandoned. During trial, Mr. Woodward's theory of the case was that negligence on the part of Research's nursing staff allowed the fall to happen and that the fall, in combination with his wife's pre-existing medical conditions, was responsible for the heart attacks and downward spiral Ms. Woodward suffered thereafter to her death. On cross-examination, Mr. Woodward's expert opined as well that Ms. Woodward's pre-existing medical conditions put her at risk of falling and that she should not have been allowed to get out of bed to go to the restroom.
Research's defense was that Ms. Woodward's pre-existing medical conditions, including coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, diabetes, high blood pressure, and kidney failure, caused the unanticipated heart arrhythmia that Research claimed caused the fall and ultimately resulted in her death. According to Research, nothing any of the nursing staff did or failed to do caused or contributed to the arrhythmia that led to Ms. Woodward's collapse.
In submitting the case to the jury, the circuit court gave the wrongful-death verdict-directing instruction, MAI 20.02, and refused, over Mr. Woodward's objection, to modify the instruction with MAI 19.01, which applies to cases involving multiple causes of damage. Thus, the jury was instructed to find for the plaintiffs if it found that Ms. Woodward died "as a direct result" of Research's alleged negligence, rather than if it found that "such negligence directly caused or directly contributed to cause" her death. The circuit court indicated that its decision in this regard was based on the lack of a reference to MAI 19.01 in the committee notes to MAI 20.02. Regarding the survivorship/personal injury claim, the circuit court, over Research's objection, did modify the verdict-directing instruction for actions against health care providers, MAI 21.01, with MAI 19.01; the jury was instructed to find for the plaintiffs on this claim if it found that Research's "negligence directly caused or directly contributed to cause damage to Elsie Woodward."
The jury, which apparently found that Research's alleged negligence did not directly cause Ms. Woodward's death, nevertheless awarded Mr. Woodward $100,000 for his derivative past economic damages, including medical damages, that had been joined to the survivorship/personal injury claim he brought as personal representative of his wife's estate. The circuit court denied Mr. Woodward's motion for new trial and Research's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and these appeals followed.
Mr. Woodward argues in support of his instructional error claim that (i) MAI 19.01, the multiple causes instruction, applies to wrongful-death claims; (ii) MAI 19.01 is required when a pre-existing condition or a subsequent injury combines with a defendant's negligence to produce an injury; and (iii) he was prejudiced both by the court's failure to modify the wrongful-death verdict director with MAI 19.01 and its purported error in refusing to also modify the converse instruction as requested. Research raises three issues in its cross-appeal, one of which was not raised in its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and one of which has been withdrawn. Those issues not withdrawn by Research are whether (i) a personal representative or surviving spouse has a legally cognizable claim for loss-of-consortium damages
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Missouri Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|