Curtis et al v. Coast To Coast Healthcare Services, Inc. et al
Filing
134
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: that Plaintiffs' Motion for New Trial on Damages 128 is DENIED. Signed by Judge Gregory F. VanTatenhove on 7/26/2018.(AKR)cc: COR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION
FRANKFORT
CHRISTOPHER A. CURTIS and
CHRISTINA CURTIS,
Plaintiffs,
and
HUMANA HEALTH PLAN, INC.,
Intervening Plaintiff,
v.
RICHARD PRETORIUS, M.D.,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil No. 3:15-cv-00070-GFVT
MEMORANDUM OPINION
&
ORDER
*** *** *** ***
Following an eight-day trial, a jury concluded that Dr. Richard Pretorius failed to comply
with his duty to exercise the degree of care and skill which is ordinarily expected of a reasonably
competent physician under the circumstances presented by this case. Additionally, the Jury
determined that Dr. Pretorius’s failure to comply with his duty was a substantial factor in causing
the damages alleged by Plaintiffs. However, the Jury ultimately found Plaintiffs suffered no past
or future physical pain and suffering or consortium, and awarded Plaintiffs $13,000 in reasonable
medical expenses. Plainitffs now move the Court for a new trial on damages arguing that the
award of damages is not reasonably related to the evidence presented at trial. For the reasons set
forth below, the Court will DENY Plaintiffs’ Motion for New Trial on Damages.
I
This medical malpractice case was initially filed on September 1, 2015, in the Owen
County, Kentucky, Circuit Court. [R. 1-1.] On September 28, 2015, Defendant removed this
case to the Eastern District of Kentucky on the basis of diversity of citizenship. [R. 1.] The case
revolved around whether Dr. Pretorius was negligent in caring for Christopher Curtis in
September 2014, when Curtis presented at New Horizons Medical Center with complaints of an
abscess on his buttocks. [R. 1-1]
The case progressed to a jury trial, which began on September 12, 2017. [See R. 110.]
On September 22, 2017, the Jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of Plaintiffs Christopher
Curtis and Christina Curtis, finding that Defendant Richard Pretorius, M.D. breached his duty
and fell below the standard of care when treating Plaintiff Christopher Curtis on September 12,
2014, at New Horizons Medical Center in Owenton, Kentucky. [See R. 124.] The Jury
determined that Dr. Pretorius’s breach was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff Christopher
Curtis’s injuries. [Id.] The Jury awarded Plaintiff Christopher Curtis damages in the amount of
$13,000 for reasonable medical expenses, but did not award damages for past or future pain and
suffering or loss of consortium as to Plaintiff Christina Curtis. [Id.] This Court entered a Final
Judgment on October 12, 2017.
II
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide, in relevant part, that “[t]he court, may on
motion, grant a new trial on all or some of the issues . . . after a jury trial, for any reason for
which a new trial has heretofore been granted in an action at law in federal court.” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 59(a). The United States Supreme Court has held that trial courts have great authority and
2
discretion under Rule 59(a) to grant new trials. See Gasperini v. Ctr. for the Humanities, Inc.,
518 U.S. 415, 433 (1996). The Sixth Circuit has acknowledged, “[t]he trial judge in the federal
system has . . . discretion to grant a new trial if the verdict appears to [the judge] to be against the
weight of the evidence.” Bell v. Johnson, 404 F.3d 997, 1002 (6th Cir. 2005) (quoting Byrd v.
Blue Ridge Rural Elec. Coop., Inc., 356 U.S. 525, 548 (1958)).
Here, the Plaintiffs challenge the damages award arguing it is insufficient and not
reasonable in light of the evidence presented at trial. [See generally R. 128-1.]
The scope of review of a damage award is extremely narrow. A trial court may not
grant a new trial on the ground of insufficient damages unless the jury verdict is
one that could not reasonably have been reached. The remedy of a new trial for
inadequate damages is appropriate only where the evidence indicates that the jury
awarded damages in an amount substantially less than unquestionably proved by
the plaintiff’s uncontradicted and undisputed evidence. Thus, if the verdict is
supported by some competent, credible evidence, a trial court will be deemed not
to have abused its discretion in denying the motion.
Bell, 404 F.3d at 1003 (quoting Walker v. Bain, 257 F.3d 660, 674 (6th Cir. 2001)).
Plaintiffs assert that they presented into evidence medical bills establishing “that Dr.
Pretorius’s negligence resulted in Christopher Curtis incurring medical expenses in excess of
$191,000.” [R. 128-1 at 2.] Plaintiffs also claim the “uncontroverted testimony” supports an
award of pain and suffering. [Id. at 3.] According to Plaintiffs, Christopher Curtis’s colostomy
procedure, and subsequent reversal, were a direct result of Dr. Pretorius’s negligence, and,
consequently, the jury should have awarded pain and suffering damages in relation to those
procedures and the resulting need for medical care. [Id. at 4-6.] Similarly, Plaintiffs contend
they are entitled to an award of consortium for Plaintiff Christina Curtis. [Id. at 10.] Plaintiffs
contend Dr. Pretorius presented no evidence on damages and, instead, “defended this action on
3
the basis he met the standard of care in his evaluation and treatment of Mr. Curtis. . . .” [Id. at
7.] The essence of Plaintiffs argument is that the evidence they presented, regarding damages,
was uncontroverted; therefore, the Jury could not have reasonably awarded $13,000 in medical
expenses, $0 in past and future pain and suffering, and $0 in consortium damages for Plaintiff
Christina Curtis.
Defendant responds by claiming they did, in fact, contest the medical expenses, even
though they did not do a line-by-line analysis. [See R. 132.] Defendant cited the record on
several points of controverted evidence, including where Plaintiffs’ expert witness’s testimony
could have lead a reasonable jury to discount the damages claimed by Plaintiffs. [See id. at 4.]
On cross-examination, Plaintiffs expert, Dr. MacArthur, testified: (1) Christopher Curtis would
have had to undergo an open surgical procedure regardless of whether Dr. Pretorius provided Mr.
Curtis with antibiotics on September 12, 2014, (2) Mr. Curtis “would require hospitalization
afterward,” and (3) Dr. MacArthur could not exclude, with a hundred percent certainty, that Mr.
Curtis would have needed a colostomy even as early as September 12, 2014. [R. 132 at 4. See
also R. 129 at 79.] Further, Defendant’s experts testified that Mr. Curtis “would have undergone
a debridement procedure and a colostomy and subsequent reversal procedures even if antibiotics
had been prescribed by Dr. Pretorius on September 12, 2014.” [R. 132 at 5; R. 130 at 28-31.]
The Court believes the Jury’s award of damages were reasonable in light of the evidence.
It certainly is true that Dr. Pretorius was found to have fell below the standard of care when
treating Mr. Curtis, and that his failure was a substantial factor in causing Mr. Curtis’s injuries,
but the jury did not determine that Dr. Pretorius’s negligence was the only factor. The evidence
presented on damages, while not explicit as to each medical expense, was challenged by
4
Defendant. Plaintiffs had the burden of proving damages. And while the Plaintiffs certainly put
on evidence as to damages, Defendants also put on evidence to dispute that evidence. The Jury
was free to accept, discount, or disregard Plaintiffs’ damages evidence; it chose to drastically
discount it. That decision, and the $13,000 verdict, is supported by competent and credible
evidence.
The Court also finds that it was not inconsistent for the Jury to award damages on
medical expenses, but award $0 for pain and suffering. In Kentucky, a jury is not mandated to
award pain and suffering in every case in which it awards medical expenses. See Bayless v.
Boyer, 180 S.W.3d 439 (Ky. 2005); Miller v. Swift, 42 S.W.3d 599 (Ky. 2001). Here, it is
necessary for the Court to determine whether the Jury’s award of $0 in pain and suffering was
inadequate as a matter of law. “A jury is not bound to believe a plaintiff or her doctors.”
Bledsaw v. Dennis, 197 S.W.3d 115, 118 (Ky. 2006). It is apparent in this case that the jury did
not believe the entirety of Plaintiffs’ evidence. The jury verdict in this case found Dr. Pretorius’s
negligence to be a substantial factor—but not necessarily the only factor— in causing Mr.
Curtis’s damages. [R. 124 at 3.] Based on the award of damages, the Jury believed Mr. Curtis
would have suffered some of his pain and suffering regardless of how Dr. Pretorius treated Mr.
Curtis on September 12, 2014.
In this case, the Court finds that Defendant put forth sufficient evidence to call into
question whether certain injuries, pain, and suffering were a direct result of Dr. Pretorius’s
negligence. Following the guidance of Bell, which states that a new trial for inadequate damages
“is appropriate only where the evidence indicates that the jury awarded damages in an amount
substantially less that unquestionably proved by the plaintiff’s uncontroverted and undisputed
5
evidence,” the Court will not disturb the Jury’s verdict. See Bell, 404 F.3d at 1003 (emphasis
added).
III
Accordingly, and the Court being otherwise sufficiently advised, it is hereby ORDERED
that Plaintiffs’ Motion for New Trial on Damages [R. 128] is DENIED.
This the 26th day of July, 2018.
6
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?