WAINWRIGHT V. FONTENOT 774 So.2d 70 (2000) CASE BRIEF

WAINWRIGHT V. FONTENOT

774 So.2d 70 (2000)

NATURE OF THE CASE: This was an appeal over the issue of general damages (pain and suffering) not being awarded when medical expenses were.

FACTS: Bert Wainwright, the father of Scott Wainwright (P), was burned while putting out a fire in their home. Soon thereafter, P began to exhibit signs of stress. P was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder. Dr. John Bambanek, a board-certified child psychiatrist prescribed Prozac ordering five milligrams of Prozac once daily. Walgreen does not dispute that, on March 7, 1996, pharmacist Romona Fontenot incorrectly filled the prescription by placing on the label instructions for one dose of twenty milligrams per day rather than the five milligrams per day prescribed. Bert gave P his first twenty milligram dose of Prozac. P's emotional state worsened and that he became increasingly combative and aggressive. Bert gave P a second twenty milligram dose on the morning of March 10, 1996. Again, P became irrational and violent, threatening his mother with a fireplace poker and indicating that he would do harm to himself. That same day, Jenna called the Walgreen pharmacy and asked to confirm that they were giving P the correct dosage. The person admitted at trial that she did not check the original prescription, but told Jenna that she had done so and that twenty milligrams was the dosage prescribed by Dr. Bambanek. P got a third twenty milligram dose they next day. P again became combative and violent, ultimately requiring Bert to physically restrain him. They eventually confirmed that P was only to get the smaller dose. P sued Ds seeking general damages as well as damages for medical expenses, past and future counseling expenses, and loss of consortium for both Bert and Jenna, all of which they urged stemmed from Walgreen's negligence in filling the prescription and P's subsequent overdose. The jury awarded Ps $1,500.00 in medical expenses, but declined to award general damages for P or loss of consortium damages to Bert and Jenna. The jury also declined to make any award for future counseling or tutorial expenses. The appeals court amended the trial court judgment, increasing the medical expenses award from $1,500.00 to $7,372.00. The court of appeal also awarded general damages for John Scott's injuries, finding that it was legal error for the jury to award medical expenses while declining to award general damages for injuries that presented objective symptoms. The majority of the three-judge panel concluded that, based on the trial testimony as to the negative effect of the overdose on P, a general damages award of $40,000.00 was warranted.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner