Wollan v. Innovis Health, LLC

1

2024 ND 169

Mary Wollan, on behalf of the heirs at law of Michael Wollan, deceased, Plaintiff and Appellee v. Innovis Health, LLC d/b/a Essentia Health West, Defendant and Appellant

No. 20240094

Supreme Court of North Dakota

August 28, 2024

Appeal from the District Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District, the Honorable Constance L. Cleveland, Judge.

Matthew L. Woods (argued), Casey L. Matthiesen (appeared) and Mark A. Hallberg (on brief), Minneapolis, MN, for plaintiff and appellee.

Angela E. Lord (argued), Fargo, ND, and Briana L. Rummel (appeared) Bismarck, ND, for defendant and appellant.

Bahr Justice.

[¶1] Innovis Health, LLC d/b/a Essentia Health West ("Essentia") appeals from a judgment, including an award of costs and disbursements, after a jury verdict in favor of Mary Wollan, on behalf of the heirs at law of Michael Wollan, deceased (collectively, "Wollan") and from an order denying its motion for new trial. We hold the verdict is inconsistent, irreconcilable, and without sufficient evidence in the record to support the award. We therefore conclude the district court abused its discretion in denying Essentia's motion for new trial. We reverse the judgment and remand for further proceedings.

I

[¶2] This is a medical malpractice action arising out of the care and treatment of Michael Wollan in September 2017. Michael Wollan was admitted to Essentia on September 21 and died on September 23, 2017. Wollan commenced this action against Essentia alleging claims of medical negligence and wrongful death. Wollan requested economic and noneconomic damages caused by Michael Wollan's death.

[¶3] The district court held a jury trial in late February 2023 through early March 2023. The court submitted the case to the jury with a special verdict form. The first two questions on the special verdict form asked the jury to determine if Essentia was at fault in the care and treatment of Michael Wollan and, if it was, if Essentia's fault was a proximate cause of his death. The jury answered "Yes" to both questions. The jury also answered "Yes" to the third and fourth questions, which were whether a person not a party to the action was at fault and whether that fault was a proximate cause of Wollan's damages. The fifth question on the special verdict form asked the jury to allocate the fault between Essentia and any other person not a party to the action. The jury allocated 25 percent fault to Essentia and 75 percent fault to "Other."

[¶4] Question 6 on the special verdict asked the jury to determine "the damages caused as a direct result of the fault of" Essentia. Damages were divided into "Past economic damages," "Future economic damages," "Past non-economic damages," and "Future non-economic damages." The jury awarded $500,657 of total damages.

[¶5] The district court awarded Wollan $83,530.25 in costs and disbursements. The court entered a total judgment of $639,292.06 against Essentia. Essentia moved for a new trial, which Wollan opposed. The court denied the motion.

II

[¶6] Essentia argues the district court erred in denying its new trial motion. Essentia moved for a new trial under N.D.R.Civ.P. 59(b)(1), (5), (6), and (7). This Court reviews a district court's decision on a motion for new trial under the abuse of discretion standard. Zander v. Morsette, 2024 ND 80, ¶ 7, 6 N.W.3d 623. A court abuses its discretion when it acts in an arbitrary, unconscionable, or unreasonable manner, when it misinterprets or misapplies the law, or when its decision is not the product of a rational mental process leading to a reasoned determination. Id.

III

[¶7] Essentia argues the jury's damage award of $500,657 against Essentia is inconsistent and irreconcilable with the jury's finding Essentia is 25 percent at fault for Wollan's damages. It further argues the finding Essentia caused Wollan $500,657 in damages is not supported by the evidence in the record.

[¶8] "The presumption on appeal is that jurors do not intend to return conflicting answers." Carpenter v Rohrer, 2006 ND 111, ¶ 8, 714 N.W.2d 804. "When a party challenges an award of damages, we generally defer to a jury verdict because damages are in the province of the jury and the matter rests largely in the jury's sound discretion." Id. We will reverse a jury's special verdict "only if it is perverse and clearly contrary to the evidence." Cont'l Res., Inc. v. P&P Indus., LLC I, 2018 ND 11, ¶ 12, 906 N.W.2d 105.

[¶9] This Court adopted the following test to reconcile apparent conflicts in a jury's verdict:

[W]hether the answers may fairly be said to represent a logical and probable decision on the relevant issues as submitted. If after a review of the district court's judgment no reconciliation is possible and the inconsistency is such that the special verdict will not support the judgment entered below or any other judgment, then the judgment must be reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.

Moszer v. Witt, 2001 ND 30, ¶ 11, 622 N.W.2d 223 (quoting Barta v. Hinds, 1998 ND 104, ¶ 6, 578 N.W.2d 553). "Reconciliation of a verdict, therefore, includes an examination of both the law of the case and the evidence in order to determine 'whether the verdict is logical and probable and thus consistent, or whether it is perverse and clearly contrary to the evidence.'" Barta, at ¶ 6 (quoting Grenz v. Kelsch, 436 N.W.2d 552, 554-55 (N.D. 1989)).

[¶10] In question 6 of the special verdict form, for past economic damages, the jury awarded Wollan $116,657. That is the exact amount of total past economic damages claimed and requested by Wollan. Wollan's expert economist repeatedly testified there were $115,000 in past economic damages; Wollan testified she incurred $1,657 in funeral expenses. Based on those numbers, in closing argument Wollan requested the jury award $116,657 in past economic damages. If the jury awarded Wollan the requested past economic damages, based on its 25 percent fault allocation, the amount awarded against Essentia should have been $29,164.25. For the jury to award $116,657 of past economic damages against Essentia, the jury would have had to find Wollan suffered $466,628 of total past economic damages.

[¶11] Wollan argues the expert economist's calculation of past economic damages was conservative and the request that the jury award $116,657 for past economic damages was a floor. However, Wollan has not directed our attention to evidence in the record supporting a total of $466,628 of past economic damages. Unlike noneconomic damages, which can be "highly subjective" and are not "susceptible of arithmetical calculation," Zander, 2024 ND 80, ¶¶ 23, 26, past economic damages "are easily verifiable, quantifiable, and measurable," Price v. High Pointe Oil Co., 828 N.W.2d 660, 673 (Mich. 2013); see also Health Cost Controls, Inc. v. Gifford, 239 S.W.3d 728, 733 (Tenn. 2007) (stating economic damages "have a monetary value that is readily ascertainable. It is therefore reasonable to require that plaintiffs prove the monetary value of such damages with relative precision."); Fear v. GEICO Cas Co, 532 P.3d 382, 386 (Colo App 2023) (explaining, "in contrast to economic damages, which can be calculated with precision, noneconomic damages are inherently subjective and thus 'can be difficult to quantify and determine'") Thus, there should be some specific evidence in the record to support an award of past economic damages of $466,628 Wollan's failure to direct our attention to evidence in the record supporting a total of $466,628 of past economic damages is "a concession no evidence exists" Davis v Mercy Med Ctr, 2023 ND 153, ¶ 27, 994 N.W.2d 380; see also Anderson v API Co of Minnesota, 1997 ND 6, ¶ 25, 559 N.W.2d 204 (deeming party's "failure to direct our attention to any record evidence to support the jury's award of $25,000 in past economic damages a concession that no such evidence exists") Moreover, the fact the jury awarded past economic damages against Essentia in the exact total amount requested is difficult to accept as simply an "interesting coincidence" Barta, 1998 ND 104, ¶ 16 (VandeWalle, CJ, concurring).

[¶12] We conclude, as a matter of law, that the jury's allocation of fault in the special verdict is inconsistent and irreconcilable with its award of past economic damages against Essentia. We further conclude the jury's award of past economic damages is contrary to the evidence in the record.

[¶13] In Davis and Anderson, after finding no record evidence supporting the juries' awards of past economic damages, we reduced the juries' awards of past economic damages. 2023 ND 153, ¶ 27; 1997 ND 6, ¶ 25. We decline to do so in this case because the wording of the special verdict form, in conjunction with the jury's allocation of fault and award of past economic damages, indicates the jury's award of damages in the other categories in question 6 may not have been based on Essentia's 25 percent allocation of fault. "It is impossible to determine, with any assurance, how or why the jury went wrong." Massey-Ferguson Credit Corp. v. Orr, 420 N.W.2d 1, 3 (N.D. 1988). Thus, reversal and remand, rather than a reduction in the award, is appropriate. See Barta, 1998 ND 104, ¶¶ 9-11 (reversing and remanding when the special verdict awarding pain and suffering, but no medical expenses, was inconsistent and contrary to the evidence); Fontes v. Dixon, 544 N.W.2d 869, 871-72 (N.D. 1996) (reversing judgment and remanding when jury's verdict awarding past noneconomic damages but not economic damages could not be reconciled); Massey-Ferguson Credit Corp., 420 N.W.2d at 2-3 (reversing and remanding for a new trial after concluding the jury's answers to the special verdict are inconsistent and cannot be reconciled).

[¶14] We hold the verdict...