Justice H. Patrick Leis III
Plaintiffs moved to set aside a medical malpractice verdict. Obstetrician Hale determined a Cesarian section was necessary at the time Reitzel entered the hospital to give birth. Reitzel began to hemorrhage during the procedure and Hale performed a supracervical hysterectomy, removing her uterus. The jury found Hale departed from good and accepted medical practice in how he attempted to control the hemorrhage, but found such departure was not a substantial factor in causing Reitzel’s injuries. Reitzel argued the jury’s finding that Hale was negligent, but such negligence was not a proximate cause of her injuries was against the weight of the evidence. The court stated given Hale’s testimony, including his attempt to suture the uterine artery, the jury could have found negligence based on his admitted failure to ligate the arteries. Yet, it noted the jury could have rationally concluded this failure was not a proximate cause of the hysterectomy and resulting injuries as Hale’s and his expert’s testimony showed the ineffectiveness of, and dangers posed by performing a hypogastric ligation. Thus, as the verdict could be reconciled with a reasonable view of the evidence, Hale was entitled to the presumption the jury adopted that view, and the court was constrained to uphold the verdict.
