Jesus Virlar, M.D., and Gonzaba Medical Group A/K/A GMG Health Systems Associates, P.A. A/K/A GMG Health Systems P.A. v. Maria Esther Carr, as Independent Administrator and Personal Representative of the Estate of Jo Ann Puente, Deceased

Summary

The Fourth Court of Appeals of San Antonio considers an appeal from a judgment on remand in a medical-malpractice action involving Dr. Jesus Virlar and Gonzaba Medical Group. The court holds that the trial court properly addressed the Texas Supreme Court’s remand instructions but included an excessive lump-sum award, primarily because certain interim medical expenses were not discounted to present value and the lump-sum components contained a calculation discrepancy. The court suggests a $533,038.51 remittitur and explains that the judgment will otherwise be reversed and remanded if the remittitur is not timely filed.

Holdings

1. Abatement was unnecessary, and the remand judgment was not void because Carr appeared and participated as the estate's independent administrator and personal representative.
2. The trial court abused its discretion by including an excessive lump-sum amount, but the error could be cured by remittitur.
3. The remand judgment did not improperly award recovery for future medical expenses after Puente's death.
4. The trial court's periodic-payment structure for 2019 and 2020 was not inconsistent with the jury's verdict.
5. Postjudgment interest accrued from the date of the original judgment, not the date of the judgment on remand.
6. The amended findings were supported by factually sufficient evidence.
7. Any error in taking judicial notice of later facts concerning Dr. Virlar's medical license did not warrant reversal.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the appeal should be abated or the remand judgment declared void because Puente's estate representative was not formally substituted in the trial court.
2. Whether the trial court awarded an excessive lump-sum recovery by miscalculating interim medical expenses, attorney's fees, and litigation expenses and costs.
3. Whether the trial court improperly awarded future medical expenses projected after Puente's death.
4. Whether the trial court's future-medical-expense calculations were inconsistent with the jury's verdict.
5. Whether postjudgment interest accrued from the original judgment or the judgment on remand.
6. Whether the trial court's amended findings were supported by factually sufficient evidence.
7. Whether the trial court improperly took judicial notice of facts concerning Dr. Virlar's medical license.

Disposition

other