Archive
- December 2024
- November 2023
- July 2022
- October 2021
- August 2021
- March 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- August 2020
- June 2020
- November 2019
- August 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- December 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- December 2017
- September 2017
- June 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- November 2016
- August 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- May 2014
- March 2014
- December 2013
- October 2013
- August 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
JURY VERDICT REVERSED ON APPEAL
Kudos to the appellate team of Bill Aaron (who handled oral argument), DeWayne Williams (brief writer), Sherif Sakla, Stephanie Reuther and Robert Faucheaux who repesented the Plaintiffs/Appellants before the Louisiana Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal in the medical malpractice action entitled Dayna Montz et al versus Katherine Williams, MD. In its ruling issued on December 23, 2015 the three Judge panel reversed the trial court's judgment in favor of the defendant physician, vacated the jury's verdict in favor of the defendant physician and remanded the case back to the 40th Judicial District Court for a new trial.
At trial the jury incorrectly concluded that the Plaintiffs had failed to prove the applicable standard of care. In ruling for the Plaintiffs/Appellants the Fifth Circuit panel aptly observed:
"After review of the entire record and the applicable law, we find that sufficient evidence, particulary through the expert testimony of both sides and the medical panel opinion, was presented to the jury to establish that the standard of care owed by Dr. Williams to Mrs. Montz was informed consent. A reasonable factual basis does not exist to support the jury's finding that appellants did not prove the applicable standard of care of informed consent by a preponderance of the evidence; therefore, the jury's finding was clearly wrong."…….
"In following Mladenoff, we vacate the jury verdict and remand the matter to the trial court for a new trial because this is a case in which a view of the witnesses is essential to a fair resolution of the evidence and the issues."