Affirming a $20 million jury verdict in a medical malpractice go well with, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court docket concluded a trial choose did not abuse his discretion in not permitting the cross-examination of a co-defendant’s high-low settlement settlement.
In a Jan. 3 opinion, authored by Justice Scott L. Kafker, the excessive courtroom unanimously affirmed the $20 million verdict towards registered nurse Susan Hanlon and others who allegedly discharged the plaintiff, Steven Luppold, from the Lowell Normal Hospital regardless of persistent signs that his foot was painful, chilly, and turning blue. Luppold, 35, later needed to have his leg amputated from above the knee, main him to file go well with towards the medical suppliers.
Hanlon appealed the 2023 Middlesex County Superior Court docket’s judgment, claiming the trial choose, C. William Barrett, erred in not permitting her legal professional to cross-examine a co-defendant and doctor assistant, Charles Loucraft, a couple of high-low settlement that Loucraft and one other co-defendant entered. Hanlon claimed the settlement—which caps a defendant’s legal responsibility whereas guaranteeing the plaintiff receives a minimal cost quantity, whatever the end result—had brought about an opposed change in Loucraft’s testimony.
Nevertheless, the state excessive courtroom concluded there was a scarcity of proof that the settlement biased Loucroft and brought about him to vary his testimony.
“Within the immediate case, it seems Hanlon sought to cross-examine Loucraft relating to the high-low settlement, claiming it biased him and brought about him to vary his testimony. How his testimony modified, or why it could change primarily based on a high-low settlement, is, nevertheless, not in any manner evident primarily based on the trial courtroom document,” Kafker mentioned. “The existence of a high-low settlement settlement of unknown phrases doesn’t alone set up bias.”
In Luppold v. Hanlon, a jury sided with Luppold in a medical malpractice case, discovering the defendants, together with Hanlon, Loucraft, and nurse practicioner Carlos Flores, had been negligent in treating the affected person. In 2015, Luppold visited the emergency division complaining his foot was painful, chilly, and turning blue. Regardless of persisting signs, Luppold was discharged two separate occasions after allegedly negligent therapy by Hanlon, Loucroft, and Flores, the opinion mentioned.
Days after the second discharge, Luppold was recognized him with arterial thrombosis and deep vein thrombosis by his main care supplier and underwent an above-the-knee amputation of his proper leg. Luppold filed go well with towards the defendants in Middlesex Superior Court docket, claiming they did not fulfill the relevant requirements of care and that his amputation was the results of their negligence, based on the opinion.
A jury returned the decision towards the defendants, making use of prejudgment curiosity to yield a complete judgment of $28.9 million. Hanlon’s makes an attempt to maneuver for a brand new trial had been denied by Decide Charles William Barrett.
On attraction, she argued, amongst different issues, that the choose erred by not permitting her counsel to cross-examine Loucraft relating to the high-low settlement settlement he entered into with Flores and the plaintiff. Hanlon argued she ought to have been allowed to query Loucraft relating to any bias brought on by the settlement, which she claimed was proof due to Loucraft’s modified testimony.
On Friday, the state excessive courtroom famous it hadn’t been supplied with any particulars relating to the phrases of the high-low settlement and located that Hanlon failed to supply any specifics on how Loucraft’s testimony modified. It concluded that the document confirmed no materials change in Loucraft’s testimony, discovering he persistently testified that the nurses bore accountability for speaking necessary details about Luppold to him, and that he would almost definitely would have ordered follow-up testing had Hanlon knowledgeable him that Luppold’s foot was discolored and chilly.
“At no level did Hanlon’s counsel make a suggestion of proof, request a voir dire of the witness, determine for the courtroom any particular situations of modified testimony, or clarify how the existence of a high-low settlement can be related to the alleged adjustments. We don’t even know the phrases of the high-low settlement on this case or whether or not they had been uncommon the least bit. Such agreements typically merely cap legal responsibility to the quantity of insurance coverage,” Kafker mentioned.
“She contends this proper was violated when she was denied the flexibility to cross-examine relating to bias. In fact, Hanlon’s counsel did cross-examine Loucraft, and was allowed to discover bias in different respects, simply not in regard to the highlow settlement, for the explanations mentioned above. Not one of the circumstances Hanlon cites helps her suggestion that precluding cross-examination relating to a high-low settlement settlement violates any constitutional rights in these circumstances,” Kafker mentioned. “Nor are we persuaded by Hanlon’s argument that almost all of different jurisdictions enable not less than some cross-examination on high-low settlement agreements.”
Hanlon’s legal professional Myles W. McDonough, of Sloane and Walsh in Boston, and Luppold’s legal professional, Adam R. Satin. of Lubin and Meyer in Boston, didn’t instantly reply to requests for remark.
