DocketNumber: C.A. No. 86-2202
Judges: <underline>GIBNEY, J.</underline>
Filed Date: 6/28/1991
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
This medical malpractice action was heard before the Court sitting with a jury. The jury found the defendant negligent and awarded damages in the amount of $210,000. With respect to damages, the plaintiff introduced evidence of approximately $12,000 representing loss of earning capacity and approximately $500 for medical expenses that were not covered by outside insurance. The balance, representing the bulk of the award, is attributed to pain and suffering. To this award, the clerk of the court added interest at the rate of 12% in the amount of $453,600 resulting in a total award of $663,000.
In ruling on a motion for a new trial, the trial justice must exercise his or her independent judgment in considering all of the material evidence in the case in the light of his or her charge to the jury and pass on its weight and the credibility of the witnesses. Juchnik v. Betters,
After hearing and considering the evidence presented at trial, this Court denies defendant's motion for a new trial. The defendant argues that the bulk of the award representing pain and suffering was based upon sympathy, compassion, and prejudice rather than upon evidence in the case. This Court disagrees, as it has found much competent and credible evidence to sustain the jury's verdict both as to its finding of negligence and as to its damage award. This Court has found credible the plaintiff's testimony that she suffered facial pain from 1972 through 1986 (except for the brief period after her 1978 surgery) as well as the medical testimony attributing plaintiff's facial pain to odontogenic myxoma which was not properly diagnosed or properly treated by the defendant doctor. Plaintiff's testimony was compelling, candid and, if anything, notably restrained and understated. The jury responded in kind with a reasonable, perhaps somewhat conservative, verdict. The Court has also considered the numerous medical reports and records received into evidence supporting plaintiff's testimony. A vivid scenario of this plaintiff's long, frustrating and sometimes tortuous medical route, all of it emanating from defendant's malpractice, was presented quite clearly to jury and Court. This Court finds the jury's verdict and award to be soundly based on the abundant, credible evidence in the case.
The defendant's alternate motion for a remittitur is also denied. A trial justice may grant a motion for a remittitur when in passing upon the evidence of damages, he or she ". . . finds that the award is grossly in excess of an amount adequate to compensate the plaintiff for the wrong done." Zarella v.Robinson,
After considering all the evidence before it, this Court is satisfied that the jury's award of $210,000. responds to the facts and circumstances of this case. The plaintiff has presented ample evidence of her many years of varying degrees of pain, discomfort, frustration and anguish. Finally, the plaintiff's testimony as well as the medical records evidence plaintiff's permanent facial numbness. Confronted with plaintiff's testimony, the medical evidence, and the testimony of Doctor Harrison and Doctor Ryan, the Court does not find the plaintiff's homemaker and/or business activities during this period to refute the substantial evidence of her suffering facial pain, often extreme, during this same period. Accordingly, the jury award does not shock the conscience of the Court. Rather, as previously stated, the Court finds the award extremely reasonable, perhaps conservative, and certainly not excessive under the circumstances. The defendant's alternative motion for a remittitur is hereby denied.
The defendant also moves this Court to amend the judgment of November 7, 1990 pursuant to R.C.P. 59(e). The defendant relies on R.I.G.L. 1956 (1985 Reenactment, as amended) §
In any civil action in which a verdict is rendered or a decision made for pecuniary damages, there shall be added by the clerk of the court to the amount of damages, interest at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum thereon from the date the cause of action accrued which shall be included in the judgment entered therein.
The defendant here argues that if 1972, allegedly the year from which prejudgment interest was computed, were the date the instant cause of action accrued, the statute of limitations would have passed at the time the plaintiff filed the complaint in 1986. Further relying on Castrignano v. E.R. Squibb Sons,Inc.,
With respect to the statute of limitations for malpractice actions, R.I.G.L. 1956 (1985 Reenactment, as amended) §
. . . shall be commenced within (3) years from the time of the occurrence of the incident which gave rise to the action; providing, however, that: . . . (b) in respect to those injuries or damages . . . . which could not in the exercise of reasonable diligence be discoverable at the time of the occurrence of the incident which gave rise to the action, suit shall be commenced within three (3) years of the time that the act or acts of malpractice should, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, have been discovered.
The defendant contends that the evidence in the record is that December, 1984 is the time the plaintiff first learned of the cyst material in her jaw, but in 1986, plaintiff first learned that she had not previously been informed that her 1972 x-ray report indicated benign cystic disease. Citing Grady v. Grady,
The defendant's reliance on Grady is misplaced, however.Grady involved a contract calling for payments to be made during a twelve month period but which was ambiguous regarding when these payments were due and payable. The Grady court refused to impose any prejudgment interest pursuant to §
Section
Finally, this Court finds to be without merit defendant's argument that §
Counsel shall prepare the appropriate order for entry.
Marilyn Castrignano v. E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc., Marilyn ... , 900 F.2d 455 ( 1990 )
Kelly v. Kalian , 442 A.2d 890 ( 1982 )
Turgeon v. Davis , 120 R.I. 586 ( 1978 )
Yammerino v. Cranston Tennis Club, Inc. , 416 A.2d 698 ( 1980 )
Mouchon v. Erikson's, Inc. , 448 A.2d 776 ( 1982 )
Wood v. Paolino , 112 R.I. 753 ( 1974 )
Cardi Corp. v. State , 561 A.2d 384 ( 1989 )
Zarrella v. Robinson , 460 A.2d 415 ( 1983 )