Day on Torts

The highest court of New York has rejected in part the medical negligence claim of a woman who sued a doctor and others for emotional distress but permitted the claim of the child to go forward.

The mother claimed that the doctor told her that the seven week old fetus she was carrying in utero would likely be harmed by fibroid tumors in her uterous and recommended that she terminate the pregnancy. The drug methotrexate was given to accomplish that result. The drug was administered, and the woman thought that the pregnancy was terminated, but later discovered she was 28-weeks pregnant. She alleged that the dose of methotrexate that she was given was too small to terminate the pregnancy. She was told that the drug administration put the baby at risk for harm, but she decided not to have a late-term, out-of-state abortion.

The baby was born severly injured. Suit was filed on behalf of the child; the mother also filed suit for emotional distress. The Court of Appeals held that the mother could not assert a claim for emotional distress arising out of the birth the impaired child but could assert a claim for any injuries independent of the birth of the child. She was granted leave to amend her complaint to plead accordingly.

The Texas Supreme Court has held that it is not error for a judge to permit a lawyer who regularly represents defendants in medical negligence cases to sit on a medical neligence jury.

The lawyer/juror candidly admitted that he would tend to relate to the defense lawyers in the case and that he would tend to look at the case from their perspective. He did say he would do his best to be objective.

I would love to know why the plaintiff’s lawyer let this guy sit on the jury given these answers; perhaps there were worse jurors and the lawyer had to use all of the preemptory challenges on them. I certainly wouldn’t second guess the lawyer for the call (especially without knowing a whole lot more about the facts) – picking a jury is the hardest part of a trial. Judgments must be made quickly, often on gut instinct (even when you use a consultant) and require you do look across the venire and think what you will get if you use a challenge on the potential juror you are evaluating.

Those of us who have lived through a couple of the so-called medical malpractice insurance crises knew it was just a matter of time before the market softened. The time has come.

The industry has declared that the insurance crisis is over. Read this fascinating article.

Of course, the facts will not stop the health care industry or its insurers from continuing to press for tort reform. Insurers want to take the risk out of the risk business, and the health care industry wants protection from patients who sit on juries.