Supreme Court OKs new medical malpractice trial
Posted: Friday, October 31, 2008
PIERRE, S.D. (AP) -- A woman who suffered complications after gall bladder surgery can have another trial in her medical malpractice lawsuit against a Huron doctor, the South Dakota Supreme Court ruled Thursday.
The high court's unanimous decision upheld a circuit judge's decision to grant a new trial in Lillian Glanzer's lawsuit against Dr. Richard Reed.
A jury last year found that Reed was not negligent. But Circuit Judge Jon Erickson later granted Glanzer's motion for a new trial because the Supreme Court in another case had issued a decision on jury instructions to be used in medical malpractice cases.
The Supreme Court said Erickson's decision to grant a new trial will stand because evidence supports the judge's decision that the erroneous jury instruction probably influenced the verdict and harmed Glanzer's chances in the trial.
Reed removed Glanzer's gall bladder on Feb. 24, 2001, using laparoscopic surgery, which involves the use of a flexible fiber optic instrument that is inserted into the abdomen through a small incision, according to court records. The surgeon had to cut apart some scar tissue from previous surgeries that had caused organs to stick together.
Complications arose, and the surgeon said initial symptoms did not indicate a bowel perforation. But the doctor determined four days after the operation that Glanzer's bowel had been perforated. She eventually was transferred to a Sioux Falls hospital, underwent multiple surgeries and had a lengthy recovery, according to court records.
Glanzer sued Reed, alleging he had breached the standard of medical care in treating her. The lawsuit also alleged Reed did not get her consent before surgery.
A jury ruled in Reed's favor after a trial in May last year.
But Judge Erickson later ruled that a new trial must be held because he had given the jury an instruction that dealt with how a doctor's errors in judgment might relate to negligence. After the trial in Glanzer's lawsuit, the Supreme Court had ruled in another case that the jury instruction on errors in judgment should not be used in most medical malpractice lawsuits.
The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Glanzer can get a new trial because evidence indicates the jury instruction influenced the verdict and harmed her rights.
Reed had argued that use of the instruction had no consequence because he never admitted he made an error and his defense did not mention or rely on the instruction dealing with an error in judgment. Glanzer contended that even though Reed's defense did not mention the instruction, the theme of his defense was that he was not negligent because he used his judgment in treating her.
"We certainly can read the transcripts and see that the words `error in judgment' were never mentioned by the defense, but we cannot as surely conclude that the jury did not rely on the erroneous instruction," Justice John K. Konenkamp wrote for the high court. "Conscientious jurors study the instructions on their own, often without prompting from counsel. Whether the word 'judgment' was invoked or not, this was a case of medical judgment."
The high court's unanimous decision upheld a circuit judge's decision to grant a new trial in Lillian Glanzer's lawsuit against Dr. Richard Reed.
A jury last year found that Reed was not negligent. But Circuit Judge Jon Erickson later granted Glanzer's motion for a new trial because the Supreme Court in another case had issued a decision on jury instructions to be used in medical malpractice cases.
The Supreme Court said Erickson's decision to grant a new trial will stand because evidence supports the judge's decision that the erroneous jury instruction probably influenced the verdict and harmed Glanzer's chances in the trial.
Reed removed Glanzer's gall bladder on Feb. 24, 2001, using laparoscopic surgery, which involves the use of a flexible fiber optic instrument that is inserted into the abdomen through a small incision, according to court records. The surgeon had to cut apart some scar tissue from previous surgeries that had caused organs to stick together.
Complications arose, and the surgeon said initial symptoms did not indicate a bowel perforation. But the doctor determined four days after the operation that Glanzer's bowel had been perforated. She eventually was transferred to a Sioux Falls hospital, underwent multiple surgeries and had a lengthy recovery, according to court records.
Glanzer sued Reed, alleging he had breached the standard of medical care in treating her. The lawsuit also alleged Reed did not get her consent before surgery.
A jury ruled in Reed's favor after a trial in May last year.
But Judge Erickson later ruled that a new trial must be held because he had given the jury an instruction that dealt with how a doctor's errors in judgment might relate to negligence. After the trial in Glanzer's lawsuit, the Supreme Court had ruled in another case that the jury instruction on errors in judgment should not be used in most medical malpractice lawsuits.
The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Glanzer can get a new trial because evidence indicates the jury instruction influenced the verdict and harmed her rights.
Reed had argued that use of the instruction had no consequence because he never admitted he made an error and his defense did not mention or rely on the instruction dealing with an error in judgment. Glanzer contended that even though Reed's defense did not mention the instruction, the theme of his defense was that he was not negligent because he used his judgment in treating her.
"We certainly can read the transcripts and see that the words `error in judgment' were never mentioned by the defense, but we cannot as surely conclude that the jury did not rely on the erroneous instruction," Justice John K. Konenkamp wrote for the high court. "Conscientious jurors study the instructions on their own, often without prompting from counsel. Whether the word 'judgment' was invoked or not, this was a case of medical judgment."
Story Comments
Read More and Post Comments 0 comment(s)
Please note: The following are comments from readers. In no way do they represent the views of The Sioux City Journal or Lee Enterprises. We will not edit or alter your comments, but we do reserve the right to not post or to remove comments that violate our code of conduct. No comment may contain potentially libelous statements; obscene, explicit or racist language; personal attacks, insults or threats. Terms of Service
