Tort/Negligence – Wrongful Death – Medical Malpractice

Wife presented ample evidence that Appellant doctor acted with conscious indifference; thus, the circuit court properly denied Appellants’ directed verdict and JNOV motions as to “gross negligence, recklessness, willfulness, and wantonness” and correctly submitted the question of punitive damages to the jury.

We affirmed.

Wife filed medical malpractice action alleging Appellants were negligent in failing to follow the policy in place at Piedmont Medical Center (PMC) “to resolve the discrepancy between the interpretation of Dr. Gilleland and the teleradiologist” and in “failing to notify [her husband’s] treating physicians of the concerning CT Scan results.” The circuit court later consolidated this matter with Wife’s action against PMC and other medical providers.

On appeal, Appellants Rock Hill Radiology Associates, LLC and Geoffrey T. Gilleland, M.D. argued the circuit court erred in denying their motions for directed verdict, judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), or a new trial absolute; requiring the jury to allocate fault; failing to reduce the verdict in accordance with the statutory noneconomic damages cap; and failing to properly allocate setoffs following a partial settlement.

Specifically, Appellants argued the circuit court erred in denying their motions for directed verdict and JNOV as to Wife’s survival and loss of consortium claims because the jury’s verdict demonstrates Wife failed to prove proximate cause. Appellants contended the circuit court further erred in denying their dispositive motions addressing gross negligence, recklessness, willfulness, and wantonness and in failing to strike punitive damages at the directed verdict stage. We disagreed. The circuit court charged the jury as to Wife’s burden of proving Appellants’ negligence proximately caused her husband’s death and as to damages considerations in wrongful death, survival, and loss of consortium actions. Some of the damages available to Wrongful Death Act statutory beneficiaries may coincide with those claimed by a surviving spouse through a loss of consortium claim. On the verdict form, the jury found Appellants’ breach of the standard of care “was the proximate cause of Mr. William Pratt’s injuries” and returned a monetary award on the survival and loss of consortium claims. The jury left blank the verdict form’s line for damages on the wrongful death claim. Appellants argued the jury’s verdicts cannot be logically reconciled due to the finding that Wife failed to prove damages for her husband’s wrongful death. They further contended that based on this record, it is illogical to conclude Wife individually proved her claim for loss of consortium, but as personal representative failed to prove wrongful death. We disagreed. We found the record supports the circuit court’s denial of Appellants’ motions for directed verdict and JNOV on the survival and loss of consortium claims. Drs. Lupetin, Shah, and Chansky provided the causal connection between the delayed treatment of Pratt’s acute rib injuries and his developing pneumonia. Accordingly, we affirmed the circuit court as to these issues.

We next found Wife presented ample evidence that Dr. Gilleland acted with conscious indifference; thus, the circuit court properly denied Appellants’ directed verdict and JNOV motions as to “gross negligence, recklessness, willfulness, and wantonness” and correctly submitted the question of punitive damages to the jury. Dr. Gilleland’s own trial testimony emphasized his conscious choice not to communicate the scan reading discrepancy to the emergency department. Thus, even if the circuit court erred in permitting the question asking whether Dr. Gilleland’s conduct was “reckless,” Appellants failed to establish the required resulting prejudice. In reaching this result, we referenced the evidence of conscious indifference presented through the expert witnesses as well as the jury’s defense verdict on punitive damages.

Appellants next argued the circuit court erred in denying their motion for a new trial absolute because the jury’s verdict was ambiguous, strongly indicative of juror confusion, and grossly excessive. We disagreed. The jury’s awards are supported by the evidence presented at trial and consistent with the circuit court’s jury instructions. Likewise, we disagreed that the jury’s verdict is grossly excessive. The verdicts demonstrated that even after finding Appellants were reckless/grossly negligent, the jury declined to award punitive damages. We affirmed the circuit court’s denial of Appellant’s motion for a new trial absolute.

Appellants next argued the circuit court erred in failing to reduce the verdict based on a noneconomic damages cap of $431,865. We disagreed. The evidence more than supports the jury’s finding of recklessness or gross negligence.

Finally, Appellants contended the circuit court erred in allowing Wife to alter an earlier proposed allocation of settlement funds following the return of the jury’s verdict. We disagreed. The circuit court could accept a proposed allocation of the settlement proceeds as reasonable only after the jury’s verdict was returned. We affirmed the circuit court’s well-reasoned consideration of the appropriate setoffs and its allocation of the settlement funds.

Affirmed.

Pratt v. Amisub of SC Inc. (Lawyers’ Weekly No. 011-061-25, 27 pp.) (Stephanie P. McDonald, J.) Appealed from York County Circuit Court (Daniel Dewitt Hall, J.) Matthew Holmes Henrikson, of Henrikson Law Firm, LLC, of Greenville, and Andrew F. Lindemann, of Lindemann Law Firm, P.A., of Columbia, both for Appellants; Chad Alan McGowan, Ashley White Creech, Jordan Christopher Calloway, and Eve Schafer Goodstein, all of McGowan Hood Felder & Phillips, of Rock Hill, for Respondent. South Carolina Court of Appeals