Puckett v. Verska, 144 Idaho 161

Summary

The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed rulings in a medical malpractice action arising from partial paralysis following cervical spine surgery. The court upheld reconsideration of summary judgment based on a supplemental expert affidavit, the jury instructions, limits on informed-consent evidence, an additur or conditional new trial on damages, and an award of discretionary costs to the plaintiff. It also affirmed the denial of costs and attorney fees to the defendant after the first trial.

Holdings

1. A district court may reconsider an interlocutory order granting summary judgment before entry of final judgment and may consider new facts presented with the motion for reconsideration that bear on the correctness of the prior order.
2. The district court did not err by refusing a proposed instruction stating that an undesirable medical result alone does not establish a breach of the standard of care because the instructions as a whole adequately stated the applicable medical-malpractice standard.
3. The district court did not abuse its discretion by limiting examination of Puckett concerning informed consent and the inherent risks of surgery where informed consent had already been resolved and the court permitted expert testimony about surgical risks.
4. The district court did not abuse its discretion by granting an additur or conditional new trial based on inadequate damages and by limiting any new trial to damages.
5. The district court properly awarded Puckett discretionary costs because the costs were necessary, exceptional, reasonable, and in the interests of justice, and the court could evaluate the costs by general category rather than item by item.
6. Verska was not entitled to costs or attorney fees after the first trial because no party had prevailed at that stage, the voluntarily dismissed claim was dismissed without prejudice, and Puckett's claims were not all frivolous or without foundation.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court properly reconsidered its interlocutory summary judgment ruling and considered a new expert affidavit submitted with the motion for reconsideration.
2. Whether the district court properly refused Verska's proposed jury instruction stating that an undesirable medical result alone does not establish a breach of the standard of care.
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion by limiting cross-examination of Puckett concerning informed consent and the inherent risks of surgery.
4. Whether the district court properly granted an additur or conditional new trial on damages and limited any new trial to damages.
5. Whether the district court properly awarded Puckett discretionary costs incurred during the litigation, including costs associated with the first trial.
6. Whether Verska was entitled to discretionary costs or attorney fees after Puckett voluntarily dismissed the indications-for-surgery claim following the first trial.

Disposition

affirmed