$20 Million Medical Malpractice Verdict Reinstated By Michigan Appellate Court

$20 Million Verdict Reinstated By Appellate Court: In its March 23, 2023 per curiam opinion, the State of Michigan Court of Appeals (“Michigan Appellate Court”) held: “we are not bound by the panel’s prior determination that defendant is entitled to JNOV. Under these circumstances, the appropriate remedy is to vacate the trial court’s January 21, 2022 order granting JNOV in favor of defendant and remand for entry of a judgment in favor of plaintiff.”

The Underlying Facts

On January 9, 2012, the decedent, Bimla Nayyar, underwent an unnecessary brain surgery, also known as a craniotomy, after another patient’s CAT scan results were mistakenly placed in her medical file. She died approximately two months later, after experiencing a series of medical complications following the craniotomy.

The subsequent Michigan wrongful death lawsuit resulted in a jury finding in the plaintiff’s favor in the amount of $300,000 in economic damages and $19.7 million in noneconomic damages. The trial court instructed the jury on the elements of causation and damages, but not the standard of care or breach. The trial court entered judgment in plaintiff’s favor for the full, uncapped amount of the award. Consistent with the plaintiff’s position at trial, the plaintiff maintained throughout the post-trial proceedings before the trial court that this was an ordinary-negligence case.

The defendant appealed.

In the first appeal, the Michigan Appellate Court granted the defendant’s motion for peremptory reversal. The order reversed the trial court’s order denying the defendant’s motion for JNOV, vacated the trial court’s judgment in favor of the plaintiff, and remanded with instructions for the trial court to enter an order granting the defendant’s motion for JNOV.

On remand, the plaintiff filed a motion asking the trial court to first enter an order of JNOV as directed by the Michigan Appellate Court, and subsequently enter an order granting plaintiff relief from the JNOV order under MCR 2.612(C)(1)(a), (c), and (f). The trial court did just that, entering an order granting JNOV in favor of the defendant, but then immediately entering another order granting the plaintiff relief from that order. The defendant filed an emergency application for leave to appeal, which the Michigan Appellate Court granted. The Michigan Appellate Court ultimately concluded that the trial court exceeded its authority on remand when it granted relief to the plaintiff. The Michigan Appellate Court concluded that because the law-of-the-case doctrine applied, it was bound by the prior panel’s peremptory-reversal order, and was not authorized to grant relief to the plaintiff.

Before the case returned to the trial court for entry of an order granting the defendant JNOV as directed by the Michigan Appellate Court, the Michigan Supreme Court decided Rott v Rott, 508 Mich 274, 288; 972 NW2d 789 (2021), in which it recognized an exception to the law-of-the-case doctrine for prior decisions that are clearly erroneous and result in manifest injustice. Thereafter, on January 21, 2022, the trial court entered an order on remand granting the defendant JNOV as directed by the Michigan Appellate Court. The plaintiff appelaed.

Michigan Appellate Court Opinion

The Michigan Appellate Court stated: “This appeal turns on whether our Supreme Court in Rott, which was decided after this Court directed the trial court to enter an order granting JNOV to defendant, expressly ruled that an exception to the application of the law-of-the-case doctrine exists in cases where a “prior decision is clearly erroneous and would work a manifest injustice.” 508 Mich at 288, quoting Pepper v United States, 562 US 476, 506-507; 131 S Ct 1229; 179 L Ed 2d 196 (2011). We conclude that our Supreme Court did expressly clarify that an exception to the law-of-the-case doctrine exists in such situations. We further conclude that plaintiff has adequately demonstrated that the exception should be applied herein.”

The Michigan Appellate Court explained: “In the instant case, plaintiff sent a notice of intent and submitted an affidavit of merit with the complaint satisfying these two requirements for filing a medical malpractice suit and the allegations made it clear that the claim was one for medical malpractice. The complaint alleged that the decedent experienced “care and treatment constituting . . . malpractice” and that defendant owed the decedent “a duty to maintain the standard of care and treatment of its peers within the professional community of hospital administrations across the country,” which are obviously statements indicating that the claim was one for medical malpractice. Moreover, defendant conceded professional negligence, so when the case proceeded to trial, the jury was charged with determining only whether defendant’s breach of the standard of care proximately caused the decedent’s death and the amount of damages. In its preliminary instructions at the start of trial, the trial court advised the jury that defendant had admitted its negligence, but contested that the craniotomy was the proximate cause of the decedent’s death, and informed the jury that plaintiff was alleging wrongful death and “medical malpractice.””

“[A]fter reviewing the trial record, it is clear that this case proceeded to trial and was tried as a medical malpractice case. Thus, the record does not support the prior panel’s conclusion that plaintiff proceeded under a theory of ordinary negligence. Indeed, it is apparent that at trial, the distinction between a claim for medical malpractice and one for ordinary negligence was largely irrelevant. The distinction between these two types of claims primarily involves an assessment of the defendant’s alleged conduct, and defendant conceded professional negligence.”

“We are also unable to find a factual or legal basis for the prior panel’s statement that the jury awarded damages only under a theory of ordinary negligence. First, as explained earlier, the jury was not required to determine any standard of care that was breached because defendant conceded the issue of professional negligence. Consequently, the jury was instead asked to determine whether the alleged negligence was a proximate cause of the decedent’s injuries, which it would have been required to do for both a medical malpractice and an ordinary negligence claim … to the extent that the jury’s verdict exceeded the limitations set forth in MCL 600.1483, it was up to the trial court to reduce the award after trial pursuant to MCL 600.6304(5). Additionally, defendant does not assert that the jury was asked to award, or did award, damages for any item for which damages could not be recovered in a wrongful-death medical malpractice action. As such, contrary to the prior panel’s conclusion, the jury’s award of damages in this case is not solely consistent with a theory of ordinary negligence.”

The Michigan Appellate Court held: “Under these circumstances, where professional negligence was conceded and the issues that the jury was called upon to determine at trial—causation and damages—were irrelevant to whether plaintiff’s claim was one for ordinary negligence or medical malpractice, it was manifestly unjust to vacate the jury’s verdict and enter a judgment of JNOV in favor of defendant, thereby precluding plaintiff from any recovery whatsoever … we conclude that we are not bound by the panel’s prior determination that defendant is entitled to JNOV. Under these circumstances, the appropriate remedy is to vacate the trial court’s January 21, 2022 order granting JNOV in favor of defendant and remand for entry of a judgment in favor of plaintiff. We vacate the trial court’s January 21, 2022 order granting JNOV in favor of defendant and remand for entry of a judgment in favor of plaintiff consistent with the jury’s verdict, subject to reduction by the trial court in accordance with MCL 600.6304(5), consistent with MCL 600.1483(1).”

Source Rakesh Nayyar, as personal representative of the estate of Bimla Nayyar v. Oakwood Healthcare, Inc., doing business as Oakwood Hospital & Medical Center, No. 360257.

If you or a loved one may have been injured (or worse) as a result of medical malpractice in Michigan or in another U.S. state, you should promptly find a Michigan medical malpractice lawyer, or a medical malpractice lawyer in your state, who may investigate your medical negligence claim for you and represent you or your loved one in a medical negligence 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 attorneys in your U.S. state who may assist you.

Turn to us when you don’t know where to turn.