Sandoval v. Gurley Props. Ltd.

503 P.3d 410

Debra SANDOVAL, As Personal Representative of Arthur Chavez and Gloria Chavez, Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v. GURLEY PROPERTIES LIMITED d/b/a Park Apartments a/k/a Property Owners Purchasing Group ; Paloma Blanca Health and Rehabilitation, LLC ; and Geriatrics Associates, P.C., Defendants,andBoard of Regents of the University of New Mexico d/b/a University of New Mexico Hospital, Defendant-Appellant.

No. A-1-CA-36624

Court of Appeals of New Mexico.

Filing Date: August 18, 2021

Certiorari Denied, December 27, 2021, No. S-1-SC-38999

Cervantes Scherr Legate, K. Joseph Cervantes, Las Cruces, NM, Joseph G. Isaac, James F. Scherr, El Paso, TX, Keeler & Keeler, William R. Keeler, Gallup, NM, L. Helen Bennett, P.C., L. Helen Bennett, Albuquerque, NM, for Appellees.

Riley, Shane & Keller, P.A., Mark J. Riley, D. Chet Alderete, Spirit A. Gaines, Albuquerque, NM, for Appellant.

DUFFY, Judge.

{1} A jury found Defendant Board of Regents of the University of New Mexico d/b/a University of New Mexico Hospital (UNMH) liable for negligence in causing the death of Arthur Chavez. UNMH appeals, raising five claims of error: (1) the district court erred in declining to bifurcate the trial, (2) the jury was improperly instructed on how to allocate damages, (3) the district court erred in admitting Plaintiff's expert's opinion testimony and in preventing UNMH from admitting deposition testimony in rebuttal, (4) the verdict was inconsistent, and (5) UNMH was denied the right to appeal because the bench conferences were not recorded. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

{2} Arthur Chavez died in the care of a skilled nursing facility nineteen days after he slipped and fell on ice and snow in the parking lot of his apartment. On the day of the fall, Mr. Chavez was initially taken to a hospital in Gallup, where doctors diagnosed him with a complex left hip socket fracture. Mr. Chavez was airlifted to UNMH in Albuquerque that evening, where he remained for seven days until he was discharged to Paloma Blanca Health and Rehabilitation, LLC. Mr. Chavez died twelve days later from a pulmonary embolism.

{3} Mr. Chavez's daughter, Plaintiff Debra Sandoval, and his wife, Plaintiff Gloria Chavez, filed suit against Gurley Properties Limited, which owned the apartment complex where Mr. Chavez fell, UNMH, Paloma Blanca, and other individual medical providers for negligence and wrongful death. After a four-week trial, the jury found in favor of Plaintiffs on all matters and awarded Plaintiffs over $18 million for the wrongful death, of which it determined UNMH to be twenty-five percent responsible.¹ UNMH appeals.

DISCUSSION

I. The District Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Declining to Bifurcate the Trial

{4} UNMH first argues that the district court erred in failing to bifurcate the trial after the court determined that Mr. Chavez had suffered separate and distinct injuries, and thus, that Gurley and UNMH are successive tortfeasors. See Gulf Ins. Co. v. Cottone , 2006-NMCA-150, ¶ 20, 140 N.M. 728, 148 P.3d 814 (discussing the distinction between concurrent and successive tortfeasors). According to UNMH, an original tortfeasor and a successive tortfeasor should not be tried together in a single trial unless there is some question of who caused the first injury. UNMH maintains that because it played no role in causing the original injury in this case—the hip fracture—it should have been excused from the trial, and Plaintiffs should have been compelled to litigate against Gurley alone for the entirety of the harm.

{5} The rule governing bifurcation, Rule 1-042(B) NMRA, states in relevant part that "[t]he court, in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice, or when separate trials will be conducive to expedition and economy, may order a separate trial of any claim [or issue.]" The decision to bifurcate is "within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion." McCrary v. Bill McCarty Constr. Co. , 1979-NMCA-017, ¶ 7, 92 N.M. 552, 591 P.2d 683 ; see Martinez v. Reid , 2002-NMSC-015, ¶ 27, 132 N.M. 237, 46 P.3d 1237.

{6} UNMH contends that the district court erred in denying its motion to bifurcate based on a misunderstanding of successive tortfeasor law. However, the law does not categorically require bifurcation under the circumstances presented. On the contrary, the Uniform Jury Instructions that followed on the heels of our Supreme Court's holding in Payne v. Hall , 2006-NMSC-029, 139 N.M. 659, 137 P.3d 599, specifically contemplate that a plaintiff may litigate against both the original tortfeasor and the successive tortfeasor(s) in a single action. See UJI 13-1802D NMRA; see also UJI ch. 18, app. 1 (stating that the appendix includes a sample set of instructions for "those cases where suit is brought against both the potential original and successive tortfeasors").

{7} Notwithstanding this, UNMH argues that because an original tortfeasor may be held jointly and severally liable for the entire harm, it is "unnecessary" to join the successive tortfeasor(s) when the original tortfeasor is a party. See Payne , 2006-NMSC-029, ¶ 13, 139 N.M. 659, 137 P.3d 599 (stating that "the successive tortfeasor doctrine imposes joint and several liability on the original tortfeasor for the full extent of both injuries" and that "[t]he successive tortfeasor is only responsible for the second injury or for the distinct enhancement of the first injury"). This falls short of establishing that a single trial against all tortfeasors is improper or should be bifurcated as a matter of law, and overlooks the myriad reasons why a plaintiff may seek to obtain a judgment against all parties liable for the second injury. And while UNMH suggests that a judgment entered against both the original and the successive tortfeasor for the second injury will result in a double recovery, it is settled law that a plaintiff is entitled to one satisfaction for his injuries. See Gonzagowski v. Steamatic of Albuquerque, Inc. , 2021-NMCA-––––, ¶¶ 10, 14, 497 P.3d 1202 (No. A-1-CA-37321, May 12, 2021) (recognizing that a judgment may be entered against any number of parties liable for a loss but the plaintiff is entitled to one satisfaction). In short, we see no rationale for mandating bifurcation in a successive tortfeasor trial as a matter of law. Cf. Martinez , 2002-NMSC-015, ¶ 26, 132 N.M. 237, 46 P.3d 1237 (stating that bifurcation is required in certain circumstances where a liability insurer is joined as a party). To hold otherwise would undermine longstanding rules allowing for permissive joinder and alternative claims, Rule 1-020(A) NMRA, and would frustrate more fundamental notions of judicial economy.

{8} Turning to the district court's ruling on UNMH's motion to bifurcate, we have no trouble concluding that the district court acted within the bounds of its discretion. UNMH argued in its motion that "[s]hould ... Plaintiffs elect to pursue joint liability against Gurley or should the [c]ourt determine, as a matter of law, that ... there are two distinct injuries[,]" the district court should bifurcate the trial to allow the cause of action against the original tortfeasor to proceed first. Plaintiffs and the other two Defendants opposed the motion, noting that Plaintiffs’ complaint alleged alternative theories of successive tortfeasor liability and concurrent tortfeasor liability and there was conflicting evidence about the divisibility of the injury—the key issue in determining which theory applied. See Payne , 2006-NMSC-029, ¶ 14, 139 N.M. 659, 137 P.3d 599. The district court denied the motion, and the case proceeded to trial. At the close of evidence, Plaintiffs stipulated that Mr. Chavez had suffered two distinct, divisible injuries.

{9} UNMH argues that the district court should have found that the death was separate and distinct before trial, but under similar facts, our Supreme Court has said that "[b]ecause the existence of two causally-distinct injuries was in dispute, the judge could not make this determination before presentation of all the evidence." Id. ¶ 40. To the extent UNMH argues that the district court erred in declining to bifurcate after the close of the evidence when it found separate and distinct injuries as a matter of law, bifurcation of the trial at that point was, for all intents and purposes, an impossibility. But even assuming the claims against UNMH could have been severed from the jury's consideration somehow, bifurcation would have accomplished none of the aims of Rule 1-042. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying UNMH's request.

II. The District Court Did Not Err in Instructing the Jury

{10} UNMH next argues that the district court erred in instructing the jury regarding damages for pain and suffering and in refusing UNMH's proposed limiting instruction. The jury was instructed that if it found for Plaintiffs on the question of liability, it must then calculate damages based in part on "[t]he pain and suffering experienced by the deceased between the time of injury and death[.]" Although this instruction tracked UJI 13-1830 NMRA, UNMH argues that this instruction was erroneous because it generally asked the jury "to award damages for the injury (fracture) without a companion limiting instruction informing jurors that damages for pain and suffering resulting from the fracture could be assessed only against Gurley for its share of fault contributing to the fall and fracture." (Emphasis omitted.)

{11} "We review jury instructions de novo to determine whether they correctly state the law and are supported by the evidence introduced at trial." Benavidez v. City of Gallup , 2007-NMSC-026, ¶ 19, 141 N.M. 808, 161 P.3d 853 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). "If instructions, considered as a whole, fairly present the issues and the law applicable thereto, they are sufficient. Denial of a requested instruction is not error where the instructions given adequately cover the...