In its Memorandum Opinion filed on October 31, 2023, the Court of Appeals of Arizona Division I (“Arizona Appellate Court”) held: “Although hotly disputed, the trial evidence permitted a reasonable jury to conclude that Pitt’s conduct fell below the reasonable standard of care when he performed (an unnecessary) surgery on Dillon where pre-surgery CT scans showed that Dillon’s C2-C3 vertebrae had already fused through a process called auto-fusion. The jury also heard evidence that Dillon suffered an esophageal tear and acute respiratory acidosis, was transferred from the Surgery Center to the hospital, and was admitted to the Intensive Care Unit. Dillon later suffered gastronomy tube dislodgement and underwent a corrective procedure, resulting in a scar from the placement of 31 abdominal staples. Then, after her initial hospital discharge, Dillon was readmitted for ten days due to infection and ultimately suffered pain, stress, depression, and suicidal ideations. The superior court properly instructed the jury it could award damages for the nature, extent, and duration of the injury, pain, discomfort, suffering, disability, and disfigurement and consider any resulting anxiety and loss of enjoyment of life. Nothing in the record suggests the jury did not follow the jury instructions. The trial record supports the jury’s verdict, and Pitt has provided no basis to conclude the court erred in upholding it.”
“Although Pitt cites other jury verdicts, suggesting the verdict here is excessive, comparable verdict information is “only marginally relevant and the trial court should not treat other damage awards as conclusive in assessing whether the jury made a just award.” Soto v. Sacco, 242 Ariz. 474, 482, ¶ 22 (2017). That Dillon did not claim future expenses or other economic loss also does not alter the analysis. There is no requirement that a plaintiff suffer economic damages. See Ahmad, 245 Ariz. at 577, ¶¶ 8, 9 (reversing court’s remittitur of jury verdict from $30 million to $10 million and remanding for entry of judgment on the jury’s verdict even though no economic damages claimed in wrongful death action resulting from unnecessary police pursuit).”
Remittitur Not Appropriate
The Arizona Appellate Court further held: “During closing arguments, Dillon’s attorney told the jury that it had to decide the value of damages and that “[w]hether it’s one dollar or $10 million, you all decide. I will suggest to you that it’s $1.5 million.” Pitt asserts remittitur was required because the jury awarded more than Dillon’s attorney suggested, but the jury’s verdict is within the range of possible damages mentioned by Dillon’s attorney. Even then, the jury was not limited by counsel’s suggestion, particularly given the jury’s consideration of damages for pain, discomfort, suffering, disability, and disfigurement.”
Source Dillon v. Pitt, 1 CA-CV 22-0744.
If you or a loved one have been injured as a result of medical malpractice in Arizona or in another U.S. state, you should promptly find an Arizona medical malpractice attorney, or a medical malpractice attorney in your state, who may investigate your medical malpractice claim for you and represent you or your loved one in a medical malpractice case, if appropriate.
Click here to visit our website or call us toll-free in the United States at 800-295-3959 to find medical malpractice lawyers in your state who may assist you.
Turn to us when you don’t know where to turn.