Court Does Not Reinstate $4M Verdict: In its Opinion filed on April 19, 2023 in a medical malpractice wrongful death case in which the patient died shortly after having a Brazilian butt lift surgical procedure, the Court of Appeal of the State of California Second Appellate District Division Five (“California Appellate Court”) held: “The jury in this case could have reasonably inferred from substantial evidence that either defendant’s injection of fat into muscle or his lack of control of the cannula was a substantial cause of the wound to the right internal iliac artery, which resulted in Vasquez’s death by exsanguination.”
“Plaintiffs’ theory at trial was that defendant breached the standard of care in two ways: (1) he injected fat into the gluteal muscle resulting in a loss of control of the cannula; and (2) he simply did not control the position of the tip of the cannula when he was harvesting fat or injecting fluid through the right thigh port. Plaintiffs then linked defendant’s negligence to the wound to Vasquez’s right internal iliac artery, which resulted in exsanguination and her death.”
“The court, in its JNOV ruling, only addressed whether defendant was negligent by injecting fat into muscle. The record, however, discloses the plaintiffs’ theory of negligence was not limited to injection of fat into muscle … Having presented testimony on how the right internal iliac artery was pierced, plaintiffs established through expert testimony that Vasquez’s death was caused by exsanguination resulting from the wound to the artery.”
“From this substantial evidence, the jury could reasonably have inferred that defendant’s deviation from the standard of care—either by losing control of the tip of the cannula during liposuction or during injection of fat into the muscle—caused Vasquez’s death.”
However, the California Appellate Court further stated: “Plaintiffs entirely fail to address whether it was error for the trial court to grant a new trial on the issue of causation. By their silence, plaintiffs apparently have assumed that JNOV and new trial orders are subject to the same standard of review on appeal. Not so.”
“The California Supreme Court has held that the trial court, in ruling on a motion for new trial, has the power ‘to disbelieve witnesses, reweigh the evidence, and draw reasonable inferences therefrom contrary to those of the trier of fact’ [citation], that the court sits as ‘an independent trier of fact’ [citation] and that it must ‘independently assess[] the evidence supporting the verdict’.”
“We need not review the evidence justifying the trial court’s decision, sitting as the “13th juror,” to order a new trial because plaintiffs do not challenge the new trial ruling on appeal. “[I]t is a fundamental principle of appellate procedure that a trial court judgment is ordinarily presumed to be correct and the burden is on an appellant to demonstrate, on the basis of the record presented to the appellate court, that the trial court committed an error that justifies reversal of the judgment” … We accordingly affirm the new trial order and remand the matter for a new trial and other proceedings consistent with our opinion.”
Source Leon v. Hughes, CA2/5.
If you or a family member were injured as a result of medical malpractice in California or in another U.S. state, you should promptly find a California medical malpractice lawyer, or a medical malpractice lawyer in your state, who may investigate your medical medical malpractice claim for you and represent you or your family member in a medical medical malpractice case, if appropriate.
Visit our website or call us toll free in the United States at 800-295-3959 to find medical malpractice attorneys in California or in your state who may assist you.
Turn to us when you don’t know where to turn.