Cramer v. Slater
2009 Ida. LEXIS 41, 146 Idaho 868, 204 P.3d 508 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Restatement (Second) of Torts § 457, which makes subsequent medical negligence generally foreseeable, is compatible with Idaho's comparative fault statute (I.C. § 6-801) and allows for apportionment of fault without negating foreseeability. Questions of proximate cause and whether an intervening act constitutes a superseding cause are generally questions of fact for the jury, and an irreconcilable special jury verdict warrants a new trial.
Facts:
- In March 2003, Rebecca and Curt Cramer employed Dr. Slater, Nurse Crowley, and ICRM for in vitro fertilization.
- Prior to the procedure, Curt tested positive for the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), but Curt and Rebecca were both erroneously informed that they were HIV negative.
- The Cramers proceeded with the in vitro fertilization process, which ultimately failed.
- In March 2004, Curt underwent a blood test in conjunction with obtaining a life insurance policy.
- On April 12, 2004, Curt was informed by Dr. Swanson that he had tested HIV positive.
- On April 15, 2004, Curt called Dr. Swanson regarding a second HIV test, but the office had no result, and after this call, Curt failed to return to his home or work.
- On April 17, 2004, Curt’s body was found at the base of a cliff, and the coroner’s office classified his death as a suicide.
Procedural Posture:
- Rebecca Cramer filed an action in the Fourth Judicial District of the State of Idaho, Ada County (the trial court/district court) against Cristin Slater, M.D., Idaho Center for Reproductive Medicine, PC (ICRM), K.C. Crowley, R.N., Russell Foulk, M.D., Joel Swanson, M.D., Associated Regional and University Pathologists Laboratories (ARUP), and Interpath Laboratory, Inc. (Interpath) for wrongful death and negligent infliction of severe mental and emotional distress.
- The district court granted summary judgment, dismissing the wrongful death claim against ICRM and Interpath.
- Defendants Dr. Foulk, ARUP, and Interpath were dismissed from the case via stipulation by the parties.
- The case proceeded to trial on the claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress against Dr. Swanson, Dr. Slater, Nurse Crowley, and ICRM, and on the wrongful death allegation against Dr. Swanson.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of Rebecca on the negligent infliction of emotional distress claim, awarding $27,000 in economic damages and no non-economic damages, and determined that Curt's death was a suicide.
- The district court denied Rebecca's motion for a new trial (based on alleged irregularities in the Special Verdict and the jury’s failure to award emotional distress damages) and her motion for costs.
- Rebecca Cramer, as Plaintiff-Appellant, appealed the district court's decisions to the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Does a negligent misdiagnosis of HIV, followed by subsequent negligent communication of the correct diagnosis and the patient's subsequent suicide, raise genuine issues of material fact regarding proximate causation and whether the suicide constitutes a superseding cause, thereby precluding summary judgment? 2. Is a jury's special verdict form that finds breach of duty and proximate cause for economic damages but no non-economic damages for emotional distress, and contains contradictory findings regarding vicarious liability, so inconsistent as to warrant a new trial?
Opinions:
Majority - W. Jones, Justice
1. Yes, the district court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of ICRM because genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether ICRM’s negligence proximately caused Curt’s death and whether Curt’s suicide was a superseding act. The Restatement (Second) of Torts § 457, which deems subsequent medical negligence generally foreseeable, is applicable in Idaho and compatible with the state's comparative fault statute, I.C. § 6-801. This means that ICRM's liability, if found, could be reduced by the percentage of fault attributable to other parties, but not completely absolved at the summary judgment stage. Rebecca presented affidavits indicating that suicidal ideations are reasonably foreseeable after an HIV-positive diagnosis. The Court concluded that the district court failed to consider that ICRM's initial misdiagnosis foreseeably left Curt vulnerable to Dr. Swanson's subsequent negligence, and that being misinformed as HIV-negative then correctly informed could reasonably lead to the belief of recent contraction and its implications. Therefore, the questions of proximate cause and superseding cause were factual determinations for the jury, not matters of law for summary judgment. 2. Yes, the district court erred by denying Rebecca’s motion for a new trial because the Special Verdict form was unmistakably confusing and irreconcilable. The jury found Nurse Crowley and Dr. Slater negligent (40% and 60% fault, respectively) and that their negligence proximately caused Rebecca's emotional distress. However, it also found that ICRM's own negligence was not a proximate cause of Rebecca's emotional distress, despite jury instructions mandating vicarious liability for the acts of its employees (Dr. Slater and Nurse Crowley). Furthermore, the jury awarded $0 in non-economic damages for a claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress, which, while not automatically requiring non-economic damages, was curious given the uncontested nature of Rebecca's suffering. The contradictory findings within the verdict could not be reasonably reconciled, thus necessitating a new trial.
Analysis:
This case is significant for clarifying the application of the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 457 concerning the foreseeability of subsequent medical negligence within Idaho's comparative fault system. It establishes that while fault may be apportioned, the original negligent actor is not necessarily relieved of liability, reinforcing that proximate cause and superseding cause are primarily jury questions in such complex cases, especially when involving sensitive issues like mental health and suicide. The ruling also underscores the critical importance of consistent jury verdicts; irreconcilable findings necessitate a new trial, preventing judgments based on confused or contradictory factual determinations.
