Defendant appealed from the denial of his motion for a mistrial and his motion for JNOV, or in the alternative, for a new trial, in plaintiff's medical malpractice action.
Defendant appealed from the denial of his motion for a mistrial and his motion for JNOV, or in the alternative, for a new trial, in plaintiff's medical malpractice action. Plaintiff asserted a Scafidi theory of liability, alleging that defendant failed to advise him that he tested positive for a genetic mutation and was therefore deprived of the opportunity to treat his condition, increasing his risk of stroke. Plaintiff ultimately suffered an arterial stroke that rendered him permanently disabled. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff, finding that he suffered $852,350 and attributing 55 percent of plaintiff's injury to defendant and the remaining 45 percent to plaintiff's preexisting conditions. Defendant filed post-verdict motions for mistrial and for JNOV/new trial, arguing that plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to prove that defendant deviated from the applicable standard of care or that such violation substantially contributed to plaintiff suffering his stroke. The court rejected defendant's arguments and affirmed the denial of his post-verdict motions. The court found that plaintiff presented sufficient evidence for the jury to find that defendant deviated from the accepted standard of care in his treatment of plaintiff. The court held that plaintiff was not relying on the common knowledge doctrine; instead, the court noted that there was ample evidence that defendant failed to communicate the genetic test results to plaintiff. The court further noted that plaintiff presented sufficient evidence of causation, noting that defendant admitted that plaintiff's genetic mutation increased the risks of stroke and that there were prophylactic treatments available. The court also noted that defendant's own notes indicated that plaintiff's stroke was secondary to smoking and his genetic mutation risk factor. Finally, the court ruled that defendant was not entitled to a mistrial, finding that plaintiff's counsel neither mischaracterized trial testimony nor improperly invoked the golden rule. source https://www.law.com/njlawjournal/almID/1584073331NJA441217T/
Defendant appealed from the denial of his motion for a mistrial and his motion for JNOV, or in the alternative, for a new trial, in plaintiff's medical malpractice action.
Defendant appealed from the denial of his motion for a mistrial and his motion for JNOV, or in the alternative, for a new trial, in plaintiff's medical malpractice action. Plaintiff asserted a Scafidi theory of liability, alleging that defendant failed to advise him that he tested positive for a genetic mutation and was therefore deprived of the opportunity to treat his condition, increasing his risk of stroke. Plaintiff ultimately suffered an arterial stroke that rendered him permanently disabled. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff, finding that he suffered $852,350 and attributing 55 percent of plaintiff's injury to defendant and the remaining 45 percent to plaintiff's preexisting conditions. Defendant filed post-verdict motions for mistrial and for JNOV/new trial, arguing that plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to prove that defendant deviated from the applicable standard of care or that such violation substantially contributed to plaintiff suffering his stroke. The court rejected defendant's arguments and affirmed the denial of his post-verdict motions. The court found that plaintiff presented sufficient evidence for the jury to find that defendant deviated from the accepted standard of care in his treatment of plaintiff. The court held that plaintiff was not relying on the common knowledge doctrine; instead, the court noted that there was ample evidence that defendant failed to communicate the genetic test results to plaintiff. The court further noted that plaintiff presented sufficient evidence of causation, noting that defendant admitted that plaintiff's genetic mutation increased the risks of stroke and that there were prophylactic treatments available. The court also noted that defendant's own notes indicated that plaintiff's stroke was secondary to smoking and his genetic mutation risk factor. Finally, the court ruled that defendant was not entitled to a mistrial, finding that plaintiff's counsel neither mischaracterized trial testimony nor improperly invoked the golden rule. source https://www.law.com/njlawjournal/almID/1584073331NJA441217T/
