President of Georgetown College v. Wheeler
2013 D.C. App. LEXIS 618, 2013 WL 5271567, 75 A.3d 280 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A party waives its objection to an allegedly inconsistent general jury verdict, or a general verdict with interrogatories, if it fails to raise the objection before the jury is discharged.
Facts:
- Crystal Wheeler suffered from numerous health problems for years, including severe gastrointestinal issues.
- In 1996, Wheeler's pediatrician, Dr. McPherson-Corder, referred her to Dr. Shafrir, a neurologist at Georgetown University Hospital, for severe headaches.
- Dr. Shafrir ordered an MRI, which was performed at Georgetown on August 16, 1996, and revealed an 8x5 mm cyst behind Wheeler's left eye.
- Neither Dr. McPherson-Corder nor Dr. Shafrir saw the 1996 MRI results or informed Wheeler of the cyst's existence.
- Over the next decade, Wheeler's health deteriorated significantly; her gastrointestinal problems worsened, she required a feeding tube, and she developed mental health issues.
- In December 2005, doctors at another hospital ordered a new MRI which showed the cyst had grown to approximately 11 x 8.5 x 10 mm and was causing 'mass effects' on her optic chiasm.
- In March 2006, a neurosurgeon preparing for surgery discovered the 1996 MRI report and noted the cyst's progression over the intervening ten years.
- The neurosurgeon then successfully removed the cyst.
Procedural Posture:
- Crystal Wheeler filed a medical malpractice suit against Dr. Marilyn McPherson-Corder and Georgetown in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.
- After a thirteen-day trial, a jury returned a verdict in favor of Wheeler.
- The jury found that both doctors breached the standard of care and that their breaches were a proximate cause of Wheeler's injuries.
- The jury also found Wheeler was contributorily negligent for not following up on the MRI results, but that her negligence was not a proximate cause of her injuries.
- The jury awarded Wheeler $2,505,450.37 in damages.
- Dr. McPherson-Corder and Georgetown (appellants) filed a post-trial motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, in the alternative, for a new trial, which the trial court denied.
- Dr. McPherson-Corder and Georgetown appealed the trial court's judgment to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, with Wheeler 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:
Does a party waive its objection to an allegedly inconsistent jury verdict by failing to raise the issue with the trial court before the jury is dismissed?
Opinions:
Majority - Belson, Senior Judge
Yes, a party waives its objection to an allegedly inconsistent jury verdict by failing to object before the jury's discharge. The court distinguished between special verdicts and general verdicts (or general verdicts with interrogatories). A special verdict only requires the jury to make specific factual findings, without determining ultimate liability, and an inconsistency objection might be preserved. However, the verdict in this case was not a special verdict because the jury was instructed on the law and was required to decide ultimate legal issues like negligence and proximate cause. For such general verdicts, any objection to inconsistency must be made before the jury is discharged to allow the trial court an opportunity to have the jury correct the issue. Because the appellants failed to do so, their objection was waived.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces a strict waiver rule for objections to inconsistent verdicts in the District of Columbia, promoting judicial efficiency by requiring contemporaneous objections. It clarifies that the nature of the verdict form—specifically, whether it asks the jury to apply law to fact and determine ultimate liability—is key to distinguishing a general verdict from a special verdict for the purpose of this rule. This holding serves as a strong cautionary tale for trial lawyers, emphasizing the necessity of carefully scrutinizing verdicts as they are read and immediately raising any potential inconsistencies to preserve the issue for appeal. The opinion also reaffirms the jurisdiction's adherence to the Dyas standard for expert testimony, focusing on the general acceptance of an expert's methodology rather than their ultimate conclusion.
Unlock the full brief for President of Georgetown College v. Wheeler