Haimes v. Temple University Hospital Common Pleas Court of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania (1986)

FACTS: On September 7, 1976, Judith Haimes underwent a CT scan at Temple University Hospital. As part of the procedure, an injection of dye was administered into her bloodstream. Following the injection, Mrs. Haimes suffered a severe allergic reaction. She then sued Temple University Hospital alleging that the procedure had caused her to suffer ongoing severe and debilitating headaches, the result of which made it impossible for her to continue in her occupation as a psychic. During the trial, the hospital was granted a nonsuit due to the absence of medical testimony supporting the claim that the debilitating headaches were the result of negligence. The defendants were then instructed to focus solely on evidence and testimony directly related to the question of medical negligence. As a result of the ruling, the court instructed the jury to determine the entitlements due to Mrs. Haimes based solely on pain and suffering endured immediately or shortly after the procedure. The jury awarded Mrs. Haimes a total of 986,465.75 which included 600,000 in damage as well as the delay of damages in the amount of 386,465.75. Temple University is filing a motion requesting a new trial based on excessiveness of verdict. 

ISSUE: Does the court have an obligation to protect the integrity of the jury system by educating jurors of misconceptions of law and by rectifying inappropriate verdicts?

OUTCOME: Yes, the court has an obligation to protect the integrity of the jury system by correcting undue misconceptions and prejudice. The motion for a new trial is granted. 

REASONING: The court recognizes the claim that the verdict awarded was grossly excessive based upon a misconception of law or evidence, caprice, prejudice, partiality, corruption or some other improper influence. Relying on the precedent set by Tonik, Jenkins, and Thompson. The court holds that a verdict should not be “…found excessive unless it is so excessive as to shock the court's sense of justice.” In the present case, the jury had been instructed to determine a verdict based on evidence of pain and suffering endured immediately or shortly following the procedure. The court finds that the verdict was excessive relative to the criteria, that the jury disregarded the instruction and based the verdict on evidence and testimony which included issues made non-relevant by the motion for nonsuit. The nonsuit motion was granted based on lack of expert medical testimony proving causality of the headaches to the procedure. Therefore prior evidence submitted referencing psychic abilities, presence of debilitating headaches or loss of ability to work in the profession was to be disregarded. The Hospital was, therefore, unable to contest these issues and based on verdict jury disregarded the instruction to disregard evidence pertaining to these issues.

COMMENTS: 

A. Following the issue of the nonsuit, would it be appropriate to allow the opposing evidence and testimony to account for a jury’s inclination to be swayed by issues of personality or inability to interpret the application of the law?

B. What prevented the trial judge from requesting a new trial when presented with the verdict?