This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The case involves a wrongful death and medical malpractice claim. A 16-year-old patient died following knee surgery due to complications allegedly caused by a malfunctioning anesthesia machine. The Plaintiff, representing the deceased's estate, argued that the Defendant, the anesthesiologist, failed to properly check and monitor the machine and respond appropriately to the emergency. The Defendant denied negligence, attributing the malfunction to the machine's manufacturer and hospital staff.
Procedural History
- District Court of Dona Ana County: The jury awarded the Plaintiff $1,200,000 in compensatory damages and $2,000,000 in punitive damages. The trial court reduced the compensatory damages to $500,000 in accordance with statutory limits under NMSA 1978, Section 41-5-6.
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiff: Argued that the Defendant's negligence in checking and monitoring the anesthesia machine and responding to the malfunction caused the patient's death. The Plaintiff also challenged the statutory cap on compensatory damages as unconstitutional.
- Defendant: Denied negligence, asserting that the machine's malfunction was due to manufacturing defects and improper maintenance by the hospital. The Defendant also argued that she acted appropriately in a sudden emergency and contested the punitive damages award.
Legal Issues
- Was the trial court correct in allowing the issue of punitive damages to be submitted to the jury?
- Did the trial court err in giving an abandonment instruction to the jury?
- Was the trial court's failure to give a sudden emergency instruction reversible error?
- Did the trial court err in permitting references to insurance during voir dire and cross-examination?
- Was the trial court's failure to give both UJI Civ. 13-1801 and 13-2008 jury instructions reversible error?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals vacated the judgment and remanded the case for a new trial.
Reasons
Per Donnelly J. (Chavez and Caldwell JJ. concurring):
Punitive Damages: The court found sufficient evidence to support the submission of punitive damages to the jury. The Defendant's failure to promptly disclose her suspicion of an air embolism and her alleged gross negligence in monitoring the patient justified the claim.
Abandonment Instruction: The court upheld the trial court's decision to give an abandonment instruction. Evidence suggested the Defendant left the patient in the recovery room shortly after surgery, which the jury could interpret as abandonment.
Sudden Emergency Instruction: The court ruled that the trial court erred in refusing to give the Defendant's requested sudden emergency instruction. Testimony indicated that the anesthesia machine's malfunction created an emergency, warranting the instruction. This error was deemed reversible.
References to Insurance: The court found that Plaintiff's counsel exceeded permissible limits during voir dire by making prejudicial comments about insurance companies. While questioning jurors about their employment with insurance companies was acceptable, the additional remarks were improper and prejudicial.
Jury Instructions: The trial court's failure to give both UJI Civ. 13-1801 and 13-2008 was deemed harmless error, as the language of UJI Civ. 13-2008 was substantially covered by another instruction.
The cumulative errors, particularly the refusal to give the sudden emergency instruction and the improper references to insurance, necessitated a new trial.