Watts v. Cox Medical Centers[1]

Opinion handed down July 31, 2012

Link to Mo. Sup. Ct. Opinion

Deborah Watts filed a medical malpractice suit against Cox Medical Centers after her son, Naython Watts, was born with disabling brain injuries.  After the jury returned a verdict in favor of Watts for $1.45 million in non-economic damages and $3.371 million in future medical damages, the trial court entered a judgment reducing Watts’ non-economic damages to $350,000 as required by RSMo 538.210.  The court also established a periodic payment schedule requiring immediate payment of half of all net future medical damages with the other half paid in equal annual installments over the next 50 years with an interest rate of 0.26 percent pursuant to RSMo 538.220.  Watts appealed to the Supreme Court of Missouri alleging that RSMo 538.220 violates, among others, the right to trial by jury provision of the Missouri Constitution and that the periodic payment schedule established by the court did not assure full compensation due to the low interest rate and 50-year payment.  Cox filed a cross-appeal asserting that the trial court erred in its immediate award of half of future medical damages.  The Missouri Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that section 538.210 is unconstitutional, that the trial court abused its discretion when entering the periodic payment schedule, and that section 538.220 gives the judge the authority to determine the manner in which future damages shall be paid.

Planned Parenthood of Minn., N.D., S.D., v. Rounds[1]

Opinion handed down July 24, 2012

Link to Eighth Circuit Opinion

Abortion providers brought an action in federal court challenging the constitutionality of South Dakota’s amended abortion statute, contending that several of the statute’s provisions constituted an undue burden on abortion rights and facially violated patients’ and physicians’ free speech rights.[2]  The case has been the subject of litigation for years.[3]  This appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit focused on whether the statute’s suicide advisory provision was constitutional.  The Eighth Circuit, sitting en banc, concluded that the suicide advisory provision of the South Dakota abortion statue presented neither an undue burden on abortion rights nor violated a physician’s free speech rights.[4]

Cluck v. Union Pacific R.R. Co.[1]

Opinion handed down May 1, 2012

Link to Mo. Sup. Ct. Opinion

Eddie Cluck sued his employer, Union Pacific Railroad Company, under the Federal Employer’s Liability Act (FELA), 45 U.S.C. section 51, for an injury caused by a co-worker. Cluck was injured when the co-worker’s personal pistol, which was packed in the co-worker’s luggage, accidentally discharged while Cluck was unloading the luggage from a company van. The court was faced with determining whether the doctrine of respondeat superior applies to FELA actions, and if so, whether the court should apply the test to the co-worker’s act of packing a loaded pistol in his luggage or simply his failure to warn anyone about it. The plaintiff argued that respondeat superior does not apply to FELA actions, or in the alternative, should be applied more liberally. The trial court ruled differently, however, finding that traditional common law respondeat superior principles are fully applicable to FELA actions. Because Cluck never asserted that the injury-causing act was in furtherance of the employer’s interests, the trial court ruled that his proposed jury instructions failed to accurately state the applicable law. As a result, Union Pacific prevailed. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the trial court’s rejection of Cluck’s proposed jury instructions by a vote of 5-2.

State v. Clark[1]

Opinion handed down May 1, 2012

Link to Mo. Sup. Ct. Opinion

Jermane Clark was convicted of first-degree murder and armed criminal action in connection with the shooting death of Morris Thompson. The trial court ruled that Clark’s attorney could not cross-examine one of the State’s key witnesses about bias. The witness had expressed a desire to testify against Clark with the hope it would result in leniency in his own potential sentencing for unrelated charges. The Supreme Court of Missouri held that the circuit court abused its discretion by not allowing cross-examination of the witness’s bias.

 

First Bank v. Fischer & Frichtel, Inc.[1]

Opinion handed down April 12, 2012

Link to Mo. Sup. Ct. Opinion

Fischer & Frichtel elected to default on their loan with First Bank.  After First Bank purchased the property at a foreclosure sale, it filed suit against Fischer & Frichtel to recover the unpaid principal and interest on the loan.  Over First Bank’s objection, the trial court instructed the jury to determine any deficiency owed by Fischer & Frichtel by using the fair market value of the property at the time of the foreclosure sale in its calculation.  After a jury verdict, First Bank filed a motion for a new trial, arguing that Missouri law requires the damage instruction to be based on the amount obtained at the foreclosure sale instead of the fair market value.  The trial court agreed and granted a new trial.  On appeal, the Supreme Court of Missouri held the damage instruction shall be based on the amount obtained at the foreclosure sale, affirming the trial court’s judgment granting a new trial.

Sanders v. Ahmed[1]

Opinion handed down April 3, 2012

Link to Missouri Supreme Court

Ronald Sanders recovered judgments against Dr. Itekahlm Ahmed for the wrongful death of his wife.  After the jury returned a verdict awarding $9.2 million in non-economic damages, the trial court reduced the original verdict to about $1.25 million in accordance with a state statute that caps non-economic damages.  Sanders subsequently challenged the constitutionality of the damages award cap.  The Supreme Court of Missouri upheld the trial court’s ruling and concluded that the non-economic damages cap that applies to wrongful death cases does not violate the Missouri Constitution.