Idaho High Court Reinstates $750K Award for Toddler's Death

The Idaho Supreme Court has reinstated a $750,000 award against two physicians found liable for the death of a 3-year-old boy, ruling that the trial court's grant of judgment notwithstanding the verdict invaded the province of the jury.

The high court said Judge Deborah A. Bail of the Ada County District Court impermissibly weighed expert evidence in ruling on a motion for JNOV brought by defendants Adrian Curnow and Russell Griffiths.

The ruling comes in a wrongful-death lawsuit filed by Melinda Coombs, whose son Michael Hall was bitten on his cheek by a dog, underwent surgery to reimplant facial tissue and subsequently died from swelling of the brain.

Michael suffered the bite June 22, 2002. He was rushed to St. Alphonsus Regional Medical Center, where pediatric surgeon Curnow, who specialized in pediatric critical care, and Griffiths, a pediatric craniofacial plastic surgeon, assumed his care.

Treatment options were discussed with Coombs, and she chose to have Griffiths reimplant the severed tissue. Following the surgery Griffiths ordered that Michael continue to be kept sedated with the anesthetic Propofol, which is used to produce relaxation and sleep before and during surgery, while recovering in the intensive care unit, the opinion says.

The continued use of the sedative was deemed necessary because of a significant risk that the reimplantation would fail if the reattached tissue were disturbed, the complaint said.

The implantation ultimately failed, and Griffiths removed the tissue June 25, 2002. He ordered that Michael continue to be sedated with Propofol, and Curnow opted to maintain the existing dose of the drug to lessen the child's pain during wound dressing changes, according to the opinion.

Two days later Michael's CT scan revealed brain tissue death and cerebral swelling. He was removed from life support and died June 28, 2002.

Coombs sued Curnow and Griffiths, alleging their negligent and inappropriate use of Propofol for a prolonged period of time caused her son's death.

At trial Coombs relied on the opinion of pediatric anesthesiologist Gregory Hammer. Hammer said the use of the sedative decreased the blood flow and oxygen to Michael's brain, which in turn caused the cerebral edema and tissue death.

Defense experts said it was not possible to determine the cause of Michael's brain swelling, according to the opinion.

The jury returned with a $750,000 verdict in favor of Coombs. The defendants filed a motion for judgment not withstanding the verdict, which Judge Bail granted.

Judge Bail concluded that the defendants were entitled to judgment because there was "no substantial evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that the long-term use of Propofol was the proximate cause of Hall's cerebral edema."

The judge pointed out that there was no scientifically reliable evidence indicating a link between long-term use of the drug and cerebral edema resulting in death.

Coombs appealed the ruling, arguing that Judge Bail impermissibly reconsidered the admissibility of evidence in considering the defendants' motion.

The state Supreme Court agreed, finding that the "reliability of expert testimony must be determined before submitting the case to the jury, not after it has rendered its decision."

The panel also noted that Idaho courts are bound by the record submitted to the jury when considering whether to grant a motion for JNOV. Hudson v. Cobbs, 797 P.2d 1322 (Idaho 1990).

Finding it "paradoxical" that a court could conclude at the JNOV stage that "previously admitted evidence was actually inadmissible," the high court vacated Judge Bail's order and remanded with instructions to reinstate the jury verdict.

To comment, ask questions or contribute articles, contact West.Andrews.Editor@ThomsonReuters.com.