GOURLEY EX REL. GOURLEY V. NEBRASKA METHODIST HEALTH SYSTEM, INC.
663 N.W.2d 43 (2003)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Gourley (P), parents, brought a medical malpractice suit against
Nebraska Methodist, a corporation, a doctor, the doctor's professional group, and others,
(Ds) seeking damages for injuries sustained by P's child because of the alleged negligent
care the mother received during her pregnancy. The District Court entered judgment for Ps
and against the doctor and her group. Ds appealed.
FACTS: Lisa received prenatal care from Knolla, an obstetrician and gynecologist employed
with the OB/GYN Group. In the 36th week of her pregnancy, Lisa informed Knolla that she
noticed less movement from the twin fetuses she was carrying. Knolla assured Lisa that this
was common and that everything appeared to be normal. Two days later, Lisa called the OB/GYN
Group to again report a lack of fetal movement and was told to come to the office to meet
with Dietrich. Dietrich's examination revealed that one of the fetuses suffered from
bradycardia, a decrease in the fetus' heart rate, and a lack of amniotic fluid. Dietrich
instructed Lisa to proceed to Methodist Hospital for examination by Robertson, who was
employed by Perinatal Associates. Robertson determined that an immediate cesarean section
should be performed. Colin and his twin brother, Connor, were delivered. Colin was born with
brain damage and currently suffers from cerebral palsy and significant physical, cognitive,
and behavioral difficulties. Ps filed suit alleging that Knolla and the OB/GYN Group failed
to monitor Lisa and Colin while they were under their care. The hospital moved for a
directed verdict. The court granted the motion and dismissed Methodist Hospital. The jury
awarded $5,625,000. Ps moved for a new trial, arguing that the court erred in granting a
directed verdict to Methodist Hospital. The jury found for Dietrich, Robertson, Sleder, and
Perinatal Associates, and the court later dismissed them from the case. The district court
then reduced the jury's award and entered judgment for P and against Knolla and the OB/GYN
Group, jointly and severally, in the amount of $1,250,000. The court found that 44-2825(1)
was constitutional. Ps filed a second motion for new trial, contending that the cap on
damages [ imposed by 44-2825 is unconstitutional because it violates their rights to (1)
equal protection; (2) a jury trial; (3) an open court and full remedy; (4) substantive due
process; and (5) life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Eventually, the court reversed
its decision and concluded that the cap on damages in 44-2825(1) violated equal protection
under Neb. Const. art. I, 3. The court also concluded that 44-2825(1) violated Ps' right
to a jury trial under Neb. Const. art. I, 6. The court found that 44-2825(1) was
severable from the rest of the act. The court vacated its previous order and entered
judgment for Ps and against Knolla and the OB/GYN Group, jointly and severally, in the full
amount of $5,625,000. Ds appealed.
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.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment