WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. (Legal Newsline) - A Florida appeals court reversed a $4 million wrongful death verdict after a plaintiff attorney urged jurors to consider the “long, long life” over which an alleged malpractice victim’s daughter would have to think about her father’s death.
The lawyer’s closing argument violated state law by suggesting jurors could award pain and suffering damages not only for the expected life of the victim, but for the lifetime of the victim’s loved ones, Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled in a March 30 decision. The jury awarded Gerald Sanford’s wife $1 million in non-economic damages and his daughter $2.5 million.
Cardiologist Amarath Vedere was accused of malpractice after performing a difficult procedure to clear a constricted artery feeding blood to Sanford’s heart. Dr. Vedere had to make 15 attempts to complete the percutaneous coronary intervention. Sanford went into cardiogenic shock during the procedure and died a month later.
His wife and daughter sued, claiming Dr. Vedere performed an unnecessary procedure and used a medical device because he was being paid by the company that made it. The cardiologist denied the claims and said he was paid only $2,000 to train other doctors on using the device.
A plaintiff expert told jurors Sanford had a life expectancy of another 12.9 years when he had the procedure, while his wife could be expected to live another 22 years and his daughter another 60 years. Dr. Vedere’s lawyers objected to the evidence because pain and suffering can only be awarded for the expected lifetime of the victim, but the judge overruled and said they could clarify the law in closing arguments.
In closing arguments, the plaintiff attorney said Sanford’s daughter “lost [her] dad from age 17 to 27, and a lot of things happened during that time and she has a long, long life expectancy, where she can think about the decade of things that never will happen.”
“Excuse me, Judge, that’s not relevant,” the defense argued. The judge overruled the objection.
The plaintiff attorney then continued, saying “I don’t want to suggest that her relationship is more valuable, or -- it’s different, but she’s going to live longer and her -- her relationship is different, and again, I don’t want to offend you with a number, I don’t want to go too low and give my clients an unfair verdict, so I’m just telling you that this is a suggestion and a suggestion only. You do what you think, using [your] life experience and your understanding of the evidence of that’s there but for Jennie I would say I suggest 3 million.”
The jury followed his advice, awarding the daughter $2.5 million, or two-and-a-half times as much as her mother. The appeals court said this was reversable error, given how the Florida Supreme Court has interpreted the state’s wrongful-death statute.
“The surviving daughter was awarded greater damages than the surviving spouse, even though their awards should have been similarly limited to their joint life expectancy with the decedent, which was either ten or twelve years,” the court concluded.
The Sanfords were represented by Schuler, Halvorson, Weisser, Zoeller & Overbeck and Harris Appeals P.A. Dr. Vedere was represented by Hicks, Porter, Ebenfield & Stein and the Law Offices of Keith J. Puya.