Hubbard v. State
2003 WL 21994743, 852 So.2d 1097 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a medical malpractice action, a plaintiff must establish a causal connection between the defendant's negligent treatment and the sustained injury. When expert testimonies on causation conflict, the trial court's factual determination is given great deference and will not be reversed on appeal absent manifest error.
Facts:
- On August 23, 1995, Curtis Hubbard was born at University Hospital and, due to hypoglycemia, an IV line was started in his right hand.
- For approximately eight hours on August 26, 1995, hospital staff administered an IV solution (D50) that contained five times the concentration of glucose ordered by the physician (D10).
- As a result of the incorrect IV solution, Curtis's right hand and arm became swollen with a burn at the IV site.
- The incorrect solution caused Curtis to become severely hyperglycemic and dehydrated, leading to his transfer to the intensive care unit.
- A CT scan performed two days after the incident revealed a possible venous thrombosis in Curtis's brain.
- Curtis was discharged from the hospital three weeks later with a permanent scar on his right hand from the IV burn.
- At age five, Curtis was evaluated and determined to have a low IQ and cognitive deficits, including a behavioral disorder and Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity.
Procedural Posture:
- Eunice Hubbard, on behalf of her son Curtis, filed a medical malpractice complaint against University Hospital and the State of Louisiana.
- A medical review panel concluded that the defendants failed to comply with the applicable standard of care.
- Following the panel's decision, Hubbard filed a petition in the civil district court (trial court).
- The trial court granted a partial summary judgment for Hubbard on the issue of liability, establishing that the hospital breached its duty of care.
- A bench trial was held solely on the issues of causation and the extent of damages.
- The trial court found for Hubbard, concluding that the malpractice caused Curtis's injuries and awarded a total of $455,000 in damages.
- The defendants' (appellants') motion for a new trial, judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or remittitur was denied by the trial court.
- The defendants then brought this appeal to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit, with Hubbard as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the hospital's administration of an incorrect, hypertonic IV solution to a newborn legally cause the child's subsequent cognitive deficits, despite conflicting expert testimony regarding alternative causes?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Murray
Yes, the hospital's administration of an incorrect IV solution legally caused the child's cognitive deficits. Causation is a factual determination that should not be reversed on appeal absent manifest error. The trial court is vested with the authority to assess factual conflicts, including weighing the credibility of contradictory expert testimony. Here, it was not unreasonable for the trial court to credit the testimony of the plaintiff's experts, who opined that the severe dehydration caused by the defendant's negligence more likely than not led to Curtis's cognitive deficits. The trial court was entitled to discount the defense experts' testimony, particularly because one expert's alternative diagnosis was a 'diagnosis of exclusion' and another expert's opinion relied on a second CT scan that the defendants failed to produce, warranting an adverse inference against them. Therefore, a reasonable factual basis existed for the trial court's finding of causation.
Analysis:
This case reaffirms the highly deferential 'manifest error' standard of review for a trial court's factual findings, especially in the context of a 'battle of the experts' on the issue of causation. It demonstrates that an appellate court will not re-weigh evidence or substitute its own judgment for that of the fact-finder, even when plausible alternative causes are presented. The decision also underscores the significant impact of evidentiary rules, as the court's approval of an adverse inference drawn from the defendant's failure to produce a key medical record likely weakened the defense's expert testimony and bolstered the trial court's ultimate conclusion on causation.
