Turek et al v. Stanford University Medical Center et al
Filing
167
PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS AND SPECIAL VERDICT FORM GIVEN BEFORE OCTOBER 24 CONFERENCE. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/23/2013)
1
2
3
4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
8
9
12
13
14
15
16
No. C 12-00444 WHA
Plaintiffs,
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
ANTHONY and LESLIE TUREK, as
successors in interest to the Estate of
Michael Turek, deceased, and in their
individual capacities,
v.
JUSTIN BIRNBAUM, M.D., JOY
RUSMINTRATIP, M.D., and
STANFORD HOSPITAL &
CLINICS,
Defendants.
/
17
18
COURT’S PROPOSED CHARGE TO THE JURY
19
AND SPECIAL VERDICT FORM
20
[OCTOBER 23, 2013 DRAFT]
21
22
Appended hereto are copies of the draft charge to the jury and special verdict form given
23
to both sides OCTOBER 23, 2013, for discussion with the Court at the charging conference on
24
OCTOBER 24, 2013 at 1:00 PM. Although counsel have filed numerous waves of overlapping
25
and even contradictory proposed instructions in the past, the proposed charge is based on the
26
way the trial has actually developed, taking into account issues that have emerged and receded
27
and concessions by counsel. Subject to the upcoming charging conference, the Court believes
28
the proposed charge adequately and fairly covers all issues actually still in play. Therefore, in
order to give the district judge a fair opportunity to correct any error as matters now stand,
1
counsel must, at the charging conference, bring to the judge’s attention any addition, subtraction
2
or modification or other objections or proposal for the jury instructions. Otherwise, all such
3
points shall be deemed waived and it will not be sufficient merely to argue after the verdict that
4
a proposed instruction filed earlier in the proceedings somehow was not adopted. Rather, any
5
such proposal that counsel still cares about must be raised anew at the charging conference.
6
The charging conference shall be conducted so as to give full and fair opportunity for counsel to
7
raise any and all objections and proposals.
8
9
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
1
2
3
4
5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
ANTHONY and LESLIE TUREK, as
successors in interest to the Estate of
Michael Turek, deceased, and in their
individual capacities,
Plaintiffs,
13
14
15
16
17
No. C 12-00444 WHA
v.
JUSTIN BIRNBAUM, M.D., JOY
RUSMINTRATIP, M.D., and
STANFORD HOSPITAL & CLINICS,
Defendants.
/
18
19
20
21
FINAL CHARGE TO THE JURY
AND SPECIAL VERDICT FORM
[OCTOBER 23, 2013 DRAFT]
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
1
1.
2
Members of the jury, now that you have heard all the evidence and arguments by counsel,
3
it is my duty to instruct you on the law that applies to this case. A copy of these instructions will
4
be available in the jury room for you to consult as necessary.
5
It is your duty to find the facts from all the evidence in the case. To those facts, you will
6
apply the law as I give it to you. You must follow the law as I give it to you whether you agree
7
with it or not. You must not be influenced by any personal likes or dislikes, opinions, prejudices
8
or sympathy. That means that you must decide the case solely on the evidence before you. You
9
will recall that you took an oath promising to do so at the beginning of the case. In following my
instructions, you must follow all of them and not single out some and ignore others; they are all
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
equally important. You must not read into these instructions or into anything the Court may
12
have said or done as suggesting what verdict you should return — that is a matter entirely up to
13
you.
14
15
16
2.
The evidence from which you are to decide what the facts are consists of:
1.
17
The sworn testimony of witnesses, on both direct and
cross-examination, regardless of who called the witness;
18
2.
The exhibits which have been received into evidence;
19
3.
The sworn testimony of witnesses in depositions, read into
20
21
22
23
24
evidence; and
4.
Any facts to which the lawyers have stipulated. You must treat
any stipulated facts as having been conclusively proved.
3.
Evidence may be direct or circumstantial. Direct evidence is direct proof of a fact, such
25
as testimony by a witness about what that witness personally saw or heard or did. Circumstantial
26
evidence is proof of one or more facts from which you could find another fact. By way of
27
example, if you wake up in the morning and see that the sidewalk is wet, you may find from that
28
fact that it rained during the night. Other evidence, however, such as a turned-on garden hose,
4
1
may explain the presence of water on the sidewalk. Therefore, before you decide that a fact has
2
been proved by circumstantial evidence, you must consider all the evidence in the light of
3
reason, experience and common sense. You should consider both kinds of evidence. It is for
4
you to decide how much weight to give to any evidence.
5
6
4.
In reaching your verdict, you may consider only the types of evidence I have described.
7
Certain things are not evidence, and you may not consider them in deciding what the facts are. I
8
will list them for you:
9
1.
Arguments and statements by lawyers are not evidence. The
lawyers are not witnesses. What they have said in their opening
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
statements, closing arguments and at other times is intended to
12
help you interpret the evidence, but it is not evidence. If the facts
13
as you remember them differ from the way the lawyers have stated
14
them, your memory of them controls.
15
2.
A suggestion in a question by counsel or the Court is not evidence
16
unless it is adopted by the answer. A question by itself is not
17
evidence. Consider it only to the extent it is adopted by the
18
answer.
19
3.
Objections by lawyers are not evidence. Lawyers have a duty to
20
their clients to consider objecting when they believe a question is
21
improper under the rules of evidence. You should not be
22
influenced by any question, objection or the Court’s ruling on it.
23
4.
Testimony or exhibits that have been excluded or stricken, or that
24
you have been instructed to disregard, are not evidence and must
25
not be considered. In addition, some testimony and exhibits have
26
been received only for a limited purpose; where I have given a
27
limiting instruction, you must follow it.
28
5
1
5.
Anything you may have seen or heard when the Court was not in
2
session is not evidence. You are to decide the case solely on the
3
evidence received at the trial.
4
5
5.
In deciding the facts in this case, you may have to decide which testimony to believe and
6
which testimony not to believe. You may believe everything a witness says, or part of it or
7
none of it. In considering the testimony of any witness, you may take into account:
8
1.
9
The opportunity and ability of the witness to see or hear or know
the things testified to;
2.
The witness’ memory;
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
3.
The witness’ manner while testifying;
12
4.
The witness’ interest in the outcome of the case and any bias or
13
prejudice;
14
5.
Whether other evidence contradicted the witness’ testimony;
15
6.
The reasonableness of the witness’ testimony in light of all the
16
17
18
evidence; and
7.
Any other factors that bear on believability.
The weight of the evidence as to a fact does not necessarily depend on the number of
19
witnesses who testify. Nor does it depend on which side called witnesses or produced evidence.
20
You should base your decision on all of the evidence regardless of which party presented it.
21
22
6.
A witness may be discredited or impeached by contradictory evidence or by evidence
23
that, at some other time, the witness has said or done something or has failed to say or do
24
something that is inconsistent with the witness’ present testimony. If you believe any witness
25
has been impeached and thus discredited, you may give the testimony of that witness such
26
credibility, if any, you think it deserves.
27
28
6
1
2
7.
A witness, however, willfully false in one part of his or her testimony is to be distrusted
3
in others. You may reject the entire testimony of a witness who willfully has testified falsely on
4
a material point, unless, from all the evidence, you believe that the probability of truth favors
5
his or her testimony in other particulars.
6
7
8.
You have heard testimony from witnesses referred to as “expert witnesses.” These are
reasons for their opinions. Opinion testimony should be judged just like any other testimony.
10
You may accept it or reject it, and give it as much weight as you think it deserves, considering
11
For the Northern District of California
persons who, because of education or experience, are permitted to state opinions and the
9
United States District Court
8
the witness’ education and experience, the reasons given for the opinion, and all the other
12
evidence in the case. If an expert witness was not present at the events in question, his or her
13
opinion is necessarily based on an assumed set of circumstances. In evaluating the opinion
14
during the trial, you should take into account the extent to which you do agree or do not agree
15
with the circumstances assumed by the expert witness.
16
9.
17
You should decide the case as to each defendant doctor separately and as to each
18
plaintiff separately. Unless otherwise stated, the instructions apply to all parties. A
19
corporation, Stanford Hospital & Clinics, is a party in this lawsuit. All parties are equal before
20
the law and a corporation is entitled to the same fair and conscientious consideration by you as
21
any party. In this case, if you find that either or both doctors are liable, then the hospital will
22
likewise be liable automatically to the same extent. Conversely, if you find neither doctor
23
liable, then the hospital will not be liable either.
24
25
10.
In these instructions, I will often refer to a party’s “burden of proof.” When a party has
26
the burden of proof on any claim by a preponderance of the evidence, it means you must be
27
persuaded by the evidence presented in court, that the claim is more likely to be true than not
28
true. To put it differently, if you were to put the evidence favoring a plaintiff and the evidence
7
1
favoring a defendant on opposite sides of a scale, the party with the burden of proof on the issue
2
would have to make the scale tip somewhat toward its side. If the party fails to meet this
3
burden, then the party with the burden of proof loses on that issue. Preponderance of the
4
evidence basically means “more likely than not.”
5
After weighing all of the evidence, if you cannot decide that something is more likely to
6
be true than not true, you must conclude that the party with the burden of proof did not prove it.
7
You should consider all the evidence, no matter which party produced the evidence.
8
11.
your verdict should be for plaintiffs on that claim. If you find that plaintiffs did not carry their
11
For the Northern District of California
If you find that plaintiffs carried their burden of proof as to each element of their claim,
10
United States District Court
9
burden of proof as to each element, you must find against plaintiffs on that claim.
12
13
12.
I will now turn to the law that applies to this case. Plaintiffs Leslie and Anthony Turek
14
allege that their son, Michael Turek, died because of negligence by defendants Dr. Justin
15
Birnbaum, Dr. Joy Rusmintratip, and Stanford Hospital & Clinics. To establish a claim of
16
negligence against a doctor, plaintiffs have the burden to prove the following three elements by
17
a preponderance of the evidence against defendants:
18
1.
The doctor was negligent;
19
2.
Plaintiffs were harmed; and
20
3.
The doctor’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing plaintiffs’
21
harm.
22
13.
23
I will now explain the first element of a negligence claim more fully. Generally, a
24
person is negligent when he fails to use reasonable care to prevent harm to himself or to others.
25
A person can be negligent by acting or by failing to act.
26
27
28
8
1
2
14.
In determining whether a doctor was negligent in this case, you must determine and
3
compare two things — you must compare the treatment and diagnosis by the doctor against the
4
appropriate standard of care. The appropriate standard of care means the skill, knowledge, and
5
care in diagnosis and treatment that other reasonably careful psychiatrists would use in similar
6
circumstances. In determining the standard of care appropriate for the case at hand, you must
7
be guided by the professional evidence provided to you in the trial as opposed to lay opinion.
8
This is because lay persons, like yourselves, and lay witnesses cannot be expected to know the
9
appropriate standard of medical care. So, you must base your determination of the standard of
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
care on professional testimony and evidence.
On the other hand, in determining the actual treatment and diagnosis rendered in the
12
case at hand, you may consider all of the trial evidence, not just the professional evidence. You
13
must then make a comparison between the actual treatment and diagnosis versus the appropriate
14
standard of care and decide whether plaintiffs have carried their burden to prove that the actual
15
treatment and diagnosis fell short of the appropriate standard.
16
17
15.
A medical practitioner is not necessarily negligent just because he errs in judgment or
18
because his efforts prove unsuccessful. A medical practitioner is also not negligent just because
19
he chooses one medically accepted method of treatment or diagnosis and it turns out that
20
another medically accepted method would have been a better choice. The practitioner is
21
negligent only if he was not as skillful, knowledgeable, or careful as other reasonable medical
22
practitioners would have been in similar circumstances.
23
In this case as stated, if you find either doctor negligent, then the hospital will
24
automatically be found negligent as well. If you find neither doctor negligent, then the hospital
25
will likewise be automatically found not negligent.
26
27
There is no claim in this case for rudeness or insensitivity. Liability can only be based,
if at all, upon professional negligence of one of the two doctors.
28
9
1
16.
2
I will now explain what a substantial factor is. A substantial factor in causing harm is a
3
factor that a reasonable person would consider to have contributed to the harm, as demonstrated
4
by competent expert testimony. A substantial factor must be more than a remote or trivial
5
factor. But it does not have to be the only cause of the harm. Conduct is not a substantial factor
6
in causing harm though if the same harm would have occurred without that conduct.
7
8
17.
Healthcare providers have testified that Michael Turek, Leslie Turek, and/or Anthony
helped these healthcare providers diagnose Michael Turek’s condition. You can use these
11
For the Northern District of California
Turek made statements to them about Michael Turek’s medical history. These statements
10
United States District Court
9
statements to help you examine the basis of the healthcare provider’s opinion. But you cannot
12
use them for any other purpose. A statement by Michael Turek to any healthcare provider about
13
his own medical condition, however, can be considered as evidence of that medical condition.
14
18.
15
You have also heard testimony regarding a “5150 hold.” When a person, as a result of a
16
mental disorder, is either a danger to himself or to others, or is gravely disabled, a peace officer,
17
staff member of an evaluation facility, or other professional person designated by the county can
18
place that person in a facility for 72 hours of treatment and evaluation. That placement is what is
19
generally referred to as a Section 5150 hold or simply, a “5150 hold.”
20
19.
21
It is now the duty of the Court to instruct you about the measure of damages. By
22
instructing you on damages, the Court does not mean to suggest for which party your verdict
23
should be rendered. As the party seeking damages, plaintiffs bear the burden of proving
24
damages by a preponderance of the evidence. If you decide that plaintiffs have proved their
25
claim against defendants for the death of Michael Turek, you also must decide how much money
26
will reasonably compensate Anthony and Leslie Turek for the death of Michael Turek. This
27
compensation is called “damages.”
28
10
1
2
20.
Plaintiffs do not have to prove the exact amount of these damages. However, you are not
3
permitted to include speculative damages, which means compensation for future loss or harm
4
which, although possible, is conjectural or not reasonably certain. Your award must be based
5
upon evidence and not upon speculation, guesswork, or conjecture. However, if you determine
6
that plaintiffs are entitled to recover, you should compensate them for the loss or harm caused by
7
the injury in question which the evidence shows is reasonably certain to be suffered in the future.
8
21.
9
In this matter, plaintiffs seek economic damages as well as noneconomic damages.
Specifically, plaintiffs claim the following economic damages for funeral and burial expenses,
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
including family travel to Michael Turek’s funeral.
12
13
14
Plaintiffs also seek the following noneconomic damages, for the loss of Michael Turek’s
love, society, comfort, companionship, assistance, training and guidance.
There is no fixed standard for deciding the amount of noneconomic damages. You must
15
use your judgment to decide a reasonable amount based on the evidence and your common
16
sense. Furthermore, for these noneconomic damages, please determine the amount in current
17
dollars paid at the time of judgment that will compensate plaintiffs for those damages. This
18
amount of noneconomic damages should not be further reduced to present cash value because
19
that reduction should only be performed with respect to future economic damages.
20
Also, in determining plaintiffs’ loss, you may not award damages for:
21
1.
Plaintiffs’ grief, sorrow, or mental anguish;
22
2.
Plaintiffs’ pain and suffering; or
23
3.
The poverty or wealth of plaintiffs.
24
In computing any damages, consider the above losses if damages are awarded, and return
25
a verdict of a single amount for both of plaintiffs. I will then divide the amount between
26
plaintiffs.
27
28
11
1
2
3
4
22.
When you begin your deliberations, you should elect one member of the jury as your
foreperson. That person will preside over the deliberations and speak for you here in court.
You will then discuss the case with your fellow jurors to reach agreement if you can do
5
so. Your verdict as to each claim and as to damages, if any, must be unanimous. Each of you
6
must decide the case for yourself, but you should do so only after you have considered all of the
7
evidence, discussed it fully with the other jurors, and listened to the views of your fellow jurors.
8
Do not be afraid to change your opinion if the discussion persuades you that you should.
attempt to reach a unanimous verdict but, of course, only if each of you can do so after having
11
For the Northern District of California
Do not come to a decision simply because other jurors think it is right. It is important that you
10
United States District Court
9
made your own conscientious decision. Do not change an honest belief about the weight and
12
effect of the evidence simply to reach a verdict.
13
I will give you a special verdict form to guide your deliberations.
14
23.
15
Some of you have taken notes during the trial. Whether or not you took notes, you
16
should rely on your own memory of what was said. Notes are only to assist your memory. You
17
should not be overly influenced by the notes. When you go into the jury room, the Clerk will
18
bring in to you the trial exhibits received into evidence to be available for your deliberations.
19
The Clerk will also provide you with an index to them, assuming the lawyers have been able to
20
jointly prepare the index.
21
22
23
24.
As I noted before the trial began, when you retire to the jury room to deliberate, you will
have with you the following things:
24
1.
All of the exhibits received into evidence;
25
2.
An index of the exhibits if the lawyers are able to stipulate as to
26
its form;
27
3.
A work copy of these jury instructions for each of you;
28
4.
A work copy of the verdict form for each of you; and
12
1
2
5.
An official verdict form.
When you recess at the end of a day, please place your work materials in the brown
3
envelope provided and cover up any easels with your work notes so that if my staff needs to go
4
into the jury room, they will not even inadvertently see any of your work in progress.
5
6
25.
A United States Marshal will be outside the jury-room door during your deliberations.
7
If it becomes necessary during your deliberations to communicate with me, you may send a note
8
through the marshal, signed by your foreperson or by one or more members of the jury. No
9
member of the jury should ever attempt to communicate with me except by a signed writing, and
I will respond to the jury concerning the case only in writing or here in open court. If you send
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
out a question, I will consult with the lawyers before answering it, which may take some time.
12
You may continue your deliberations while waiting for the answer to any question. Remember
13
that you are not to tell anyone — including me — how the jury stands, numerically or otherwise,
14
until after you have reached a unanimous verdict or have been discharged. Do not disclose any
15
vote count in any note to the Court.
16
17
26.
You have been required to be here each day from 7:45 A.M. to 1:00 P.M. Now that you
18
are going to begin your deliberations, however, you are free to modify this schedule within
19
reason. For example, if you wish to continue deliberating in the afternoons after a reasonable
20
lunch break, that is fine. The Court does, however, recommend that you continue to start your
21
deliberations by 8:00 A.M. If you do not reach a verdict by the end of today, then you will
22
resume your deliberations on the next court day and thereafter.
23
It is very important that you let the Clerk know in advance what hours you will be
24
deliberating so that the lawyers may be present in the courthouse at any time the jury is
25
deliberating.
26
27
28
13
1
27.
2
You may only deliberate when all of you are together. This means, for instance, that in
3
the mornings before everyone has arrived or when someone steps out of the jury room to go to
4
the restroom, you may not discuss the case. As well, the admonition that you are not to speak to
5
anyone outside the jury room about this case still applies during your deliberation.
6
7
28.
After you have reached a unanimous agreement on a verdict, your foreperson will fill in,
foreperson should hold onto the filled-in verdict form and bring it into the courtroom when the
10
jury returns the verdict. Thank you for your careful attention. The case is now in your hands.
11
For the Northern District of California
date and sign the verdict form and advise the Court that you have reached a verdict. The
9
United States District Court
8
You may now retire to the jury room and begin your deliberations.
12
13
14
DRAFT
Dated: October 23, 2013.
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
ANTHONY and LESLIE TUREK, as
successors in interest to the Estate of
Michael Turek, deceased, and in their
individual capacities,
Plaintiffs,
13
14
15
16
17
No. C 12-00444 WHA
v.
JUSTIN BIRNBAUM, M.D., JOY
RUSMINTRATIP, M.D., and STANFORD
HOSPITAL & CLINICS,
Defendants.
/
18
19
20
SPECIAL VERDICT FORM
21
[OCTOBER 23, 2013 DRAFT]
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
Please answer the questions below as indicated. Your answers to the following questions
must be unanimous.
QUESTION NO. 1
4
5
6
Have plaintiffs proven by a preponderance of the evidence that either of the following
were negligent in their care and treatment of Michael Turek?
7
8
YES
NO
9
Justin Birnbaum, M.D.:
_________
_________
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
Joy Rusmintratip, M.D.:
_________
_________
12
13
If you answer yes as to either doctor, then Stanford Hospital & Clinics will automatically
14
be liable to the same extent. If you answer no as to both doctors, then the hospital will not be
15
liable. If you answer no as to both doctors, you are done, so go to the end and sign and date this
16
form; otherwise, go to the next question.
17
18
19
20
QUESTION NO. 2
Have plaintiffs proven by a preponderance of the evidence that said negligence was a
substantial factor in causing Michael Turek’s death?
21
22
YES
NO
23
24
Justin Birnbaum, M.D.:
_________
_________
25
Joy Rusmintratip, M.D.:
_________
_________
26
27
28
If you answer no as to both doctors, you are done, so please go to the end and sign and
date this form. Otherwise, go to the next question.
2
1
2
QUESTION NO. 3
What economic damages have plaintiffs proven by a preponderance of the evidence?
3
4
Funeral and burial expenses
(including family travel expenses to the funeral):
$ _________
5
6
QUESTION NO. 4
7
What noneconomic damages (for loss of Michael Turek’s love, society, comfort,
8
companionship, assistance, training, and guidance) have plaintiffs proven by a preponderance of
9
the evidence?
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
Leslie Turek:
$ _________
Anthony Turek:
$ _________
12
13
14
15
16
17
QUESTION NO. 5
If you have answered yes as to both questions 1 and 2 as to both doctors, what percentage
of responsibility for the death of Michael Turek do you assign to:
18
19
Justin Birnbaum, M.D.:
_________%
Joy Rusmintratip, M.D.:
_________%
20
21
22
CONCLUSION
23
24
25
Please have the foreperson sign and date this form. Then contact the deputy or marshal
to inform him or her that you have completed your deliberations.
26
27
Dated: October ____, 2013.
FOREPERSON
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?