By Damian D. Capozzola, Esq., and Jamie Terrence, RN
News
A settlement has been reached in a high-stakes lawsuit between an orthopedics center and former patient stemming from a 2017 emergency surgery that allegedly led to catastrophic and permanent injuries to the patient’s leg. This settlement comes just before a second trial was set to begin after a jury previously had awarded the patient $110 million in damages — a verdict later vacated by the court for being excessive.
The patient, a college student at the time of his injury, claimed that the orthopedics center was negligent in diagnosing and treating compartment syndrome following a surgery to address a soccer injury. As a result, the patient was forced to endure more than 20 painful surgeries, leaving him permanently scarred, in chronic pain, and unable to pursue the physically active lifestyle he once enjoyed. After the verdict was reduced, the parties notified the court of a pending settlement agreement on the eve of an ordered second trial.
The terms of the settlement remain confidential, but the case highlights important considerations in medical malpractice litigation, including the limits of jury awards.
Background
The lawsuit centers around a former student in Minnesota who suffered a life-altering leg injury during a soccer match in January 2017. The plaintiff fractured his left tibia and fibula and was taken to a hospital for treatment. After an initial surgery, he was discharged only to return to the hospital days later with intense pain. Medical staff determined that the plaintiff had developed acute compartment syndrome, a serious condition that can occur after surgery and, if left untreated, can result in significant tissue damage or even amputation. Unfortunately, by the time this condition was diagnosed, the plaintiff already had suffered irreversible damage.
Over the course of his recovery, the plaintiff underwent more than 20 surgeries to treat the compartment syndrome and repair the resulting damage to his leg. Despite these efforts, the lawsuit claimed that the plaintiff was left with permanent scarring, chronic pain, and limited mobility, forcing him to give up his athletic pursuits and changing his plans for the future, which included participating in physical activities, such as hiking in the mountainous regions of his native Nepal.
In September 2019, the plaintiff filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the orthopedics center, alleging that the orthopedic center’s negligence in diagnosing and treating his compartment syndrome caused his permanent disabilities. The lawsuit proceeded to trial. In May 2022, a jury awarded the plaintiff a total of $111 million in damages, including $10 million for past pain and suffering and $100 million for future pain and suffering.
However, the trial court judge found the jury’s award to be “shockingly excessive.” He noted that, while the plaintiff’s injuries were severe, the facts did not support such an extraordinary amount of noneconomic damages. In his October 2022 ruling, the judge gave the plaintiff the option of accepting a reduced award of $10 million or facing a second trial. The plaintiff opted for the latter, setting the stage for a retrial scheduled for early 2024. However, just before the second trial was set to begin, the parties reached a settlement in principle, leading to the trial’s cancellation. Although the exact terms of the settlement have not been made public, the settlement resolves a significant medical malpractice case that could have set new records for noneconomic damages in Minnesota.
What This Means for You
Unfortunately, compartment syndrome is not a rare complication of surgery, and it is preventable when patients are educated about postoperative warning signs and specific responses to take if any of these signs are observed. Changes in temperature, sensation, size, pain, skin color, and wound drainage all matter and should be reported to the surgeon as soon as noted. Quick action on the part of the caregiver to relieve the pressure buildup within the wound can prevent potential injury. But once the patient leaves the hospital, the situation can spin rapidly out of control. The responsibility falls to the patient if there is clear documentation that patient teaching took place, that it was thorough, and, most notably, that the patient understood the teaching, which should be documented.
More generally, this case provides a critical lens into the legal concept of noneconomic damages in medical malpractice lawsuits and the substantial financial risks healthcare providers face when taking a case involving a sympathetic plaintiff to trial. Noneconomic damages refer to compensation for intangible harms suffered by a plaintiff, such as pain and suffering, emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life, and other similar harms that are not tied to any specific financial loss, such as medical bills or lost wages. In this case, the jury initially awarded the plaintiff a stunning $110 million in noneconomic damages — $10 million for past pain and suffering and $100 million for future pain and suffering. This massive award, the largest of its kind in Minnesota’s history, illustrates the risk that hospitals face when they allow these types of cases to proceed to trial without reaching a settlement.
In medical malpractice cases, a jury is tasked with determining both economic and noneconomic damages. While economic damages are more straightforward to quantify (e.g., medical bills, lost wages), noneconomic damages require jurors to assess the pain, suffering, and diminished quality of life that the plaintiff has endured because of the alleged negligence. Juries often are influenced by the severity of the injuries and the emotional appeal of the plaintiff’s circumstances, particularly when the plaintiff is young or has suffered life-altering disabilities, as in the plaintiff’s case.
In awarding noneconomic damages, juries are instructed to consider factors such as the plaintiff’s physical pain, emotional distress, and future limitations. In this case, the jury clearly sympathized with the plaintiff, a young man who underwent more than 20 surgeries and now faces lifelong limitations, including chronic pain, scarring, and an inability to participate in sports or other physical activities he once enjoyed. This led to an unprecedented and “shockingly excessive” award, in the words of the court.
However, even though juries have discretion in awarding noneconomic damages, their decisions are not immune from judicial review. When a court finds that a jury’s award is excessive, as it did here, the judge has the authority to intervene. Under the legal doctrine of remittitur, a judge can reduce a jury’s award of damages if it is deemed excessively high and not supported by the evidence. Here, the judge determined that the jury’s award of $110 million in noneconomic damages was disproportionate to the injuries suffered by the plaintiff, despite the severity of his condition.
The judge’s reasoning was based on several factors, including that, while the plaintiff suffered from chronic pain and permanent scarring, he was not confined to a wheelchair or in need of round-the-clock care. The plaintiff also was able to complete his college education, despite having to drop out of an engineering program because of his injuries. Based on these considerations, the judge concluded that the noneconomic damages were excessive, given the actual effect of the injuries on the plaintiff’s life, particularly compared to other cases with more severe outcomes.
Using remittitur, the judge reduced the award to $10 million for noneconomic damages — an amount he found more in line with the facts of the case and the established legal standards for pain and suffering awards in Minnesota. The judge then gave the plaintiff two options: either accept the reduced award or reject the reduction and face a second trial on damages. This procedural safeguard ensures that the plaintiff retains control over the decision, balancing the court’s duty to prevent excessive awards with the plaintiff’s right to seek compensation.
Faced with the possibility of a second trial, the defendant orthopedics center had a decision to make. On one hand, the hospital could push for a new trial in the hopes of securing a more favorable outcome. A second trial would give them another chance to argue that their care was not negligent or that the damages awarded to the plaintiff were overstated. However, this option came with substantial risks. In a case with a sympathetic plaintiff, who suffered visible and lasting injuries, a second jury could once again award an enormous sum for noneconomic damages — potentially even exceeding the $10 million remitted by the court.
On the other hand, the hospital could opt to settle the case out of court and avoid the uncertainty of another jury trial and the potential for another huge verdict. Settling also allows the hospital to keep the details of the agreement confidential, which was done in this case. Ultimately, the hospital chose to settle rather than face a new trial. For hospitals and their insurers, settling a case before it goes to trial — or before a second trial — often represents a safer option when faced with the unpredictability of jury awards, particularly in cases involving serious injuries and sympathetic plaintiffs.
For healthcare institutions, this case serves as a warning about the financial risks involved in going to trial in medical malpractice cases. Large noneconomic damages can be awarded in cases involving young or severely injured plaintiffs, and juries easily can be swayed by emotional testimony about the long-term effects of a medical error. Even when a judge intervenes to reduce an excessive award, which may not happen, the damage to the hospital’s reputation and the financial cost of litigation still can be significant.
Reference
- Settlement reached in September 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, Case No. 19-cv-02568.
Damian D. Capozzola, Esq., The Law Offices of Damian D. Capozzola, Los Angeles
Jamie Terrence, RN, President and Founder, Healthcare Risk Services, Former Director of Risk Management Services (2004-2013), California Hospital Medical Center, Los Angeles
A settlement has been reached in a high-stakes lawsuit between an orthopedics center and former patient stemming from a 2017 emergency surgery that allegedly led to catastrophic and permanent injuries to the patient’s leg. This settlement comes just before a second trial was set to begin after a jury previously had awarded the patient $110 million in damages — a verdict later vacated by the court for being excessive.
Subscribe Now for Access
You have reached your article limit for the month. We hope you found our articles both enjoyable and insightful. For information on new subscriptions, product trials, alternative billing arrangements or group and site discounts please call 800-688-2421. We look forward to having you as a long-term member of the Relias Media community.