A jury’s award of $45 million in opposition to Temple College Hospital was illogical and exorbitant, a Philadelphia decide dominated.
Decide Glynnis Hill of the Philadelphia Court docket of Widespread Pleas held Dec. 5 that inconsistencies within the jury’s determinations have been vital sufficient to warrant a brand new trial within the case, captioned Hernandez v. Temple College Hospital.
Hill took situation with the jury’s findings on each legal responsibility and damages, ruling that the determinations didn’t “make logical or authorized sense” or align with the proof offered.
Within the Hernandez case, plaintiff Dylan Hernandez, represented by the Duffy Agency, claimed he sustained neurological injury choking on meals as a result of Temple College Hospital prematurely discharged him from therapy for a gunshot wound to the neck. However Temple Well being, represented by the Tucker Legislation Group and Duane Morris, asserted that Hernandez choked as a result of he had been consuming strong meals regardless of discharge orders instructing him to not.
The jury discovered that each the plaintiff and Temple Well being have been negligent, however that solely Temple Well being’s negligence was a factual reason for the plaintiff’s hurt. The August verdict consisted of $39.1 million for previous and future medical bills, plus roughly $2.3 million for lack of earnings and $3.5 million for noneconomic damages.
However Temple Well being contended in a posttrial movement that the jury contradicted its personal findings by figuring out Hernandez’s negligence was not a reason for his accidents.
The case had concerned a factual dispute over what Hernandez had been consuming when he choked, with the defendants claiming Hernandez had been consuming rooster and the plaintiffs claiming he had been consuming mashed potatoes.
Hill dominated that, no matter which meals the jurors believed Hernandez ate, the jury may solely have discovered the plaintiff negligent if it believed he violated his discharge orders, as that was the one concept of the plaintiff’s negligence proposed by the protection. And if Hernandez had eaten strong meals, he should have been at the very least considerably chargeable for his accidents, the decide held.
And the jury’s calculation on damages was even “extra surprising to the court docket’s conscience and sense of justice,” Hill continued.
The decision had included $39.3 million in future medical prices, whereas the plaintiff’s personal knowledgeable estimated Hernandez’s future medical care would price both $17.8 million or $19.6 million, relying on whether or not he acquired at-home or inpatient care.
Hill famous that the jury’s award surpassed each of the knowledgeable’s estimates mixed however was allotted primarily based on a decrease life expectancy than the one calculated by the plaintiff’s knowledgeable.
“The court docket allowed the jury to evaluate the report within the deliberation room,” Hill dominated, “and but the jury clearly both made a mistake of their calculations or have been swayed by sympathy or another improper foundation for resolution making, because the award merely doesn’t align with the proof offered.”
Hill dominated {that a} new trial was the one strategy to appropriate the problems with the jury’s verdict.
Temple Well being common counsel John Ryan mentioned the hospital is “grateful to Decide Hill for his well-reasoned and considerate method to this case.”
Ryan mentioned the ruling “underscores the inaccuracy of some ill-conceived labels of the Philadelphia judicial system,” referring to the American Tort Reform Basis’s latest rating of the Philadelphia Court docket of Widespread Pleas because the nation’s worst “Judicial Hellhole” in its 2024-25 report.
Ryan mentioned that whereas Temple Well being stays “involved that sympathetic juries can award damages that exceed what is suitable to supply look after an injured plaintiff,” the ruling displays that Temple Well being’s technique to take a position extra in exterior counsel is working.
Hernandez’s lawyer, Thomas J. Duffy, was much less complimentary about Hill’s ruling.
“The opinion just isn’t an instance of judicial readability by any means,” Duffy asserted.
Duffy argued that Hill’s interpretation of the info and legislation of the case was mistaken.
As an illustration, Duffy contended, Hill’s order says Hernandez was launched from the hospital on a liquid-only food regimen. Duffy claimed that was not true, and that Hernandez had been allowed to eat smooth meals corresponding to mashed potatoes.
Duffy mentioned the plaintiff plans to attraction. Nonetheless, he asserted, “If we’ve to strive the case once more, the decision can be larger the subsequent time.”
