Superior Court Rules Unfavorably in Dajah Hagans v. Hospital
The Superior Court recently ruled unfavorably in Dajah Hagans v. Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, et al., a case in which PAMED and the AMA partnered on an amici curiae (“friends of the court”) brief. The case concerns the treatment that J.H., a now-seven-year-old boy, received at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania (“HUP”) at the time of his birth. Specifically, the plaintiff, J.H.’s mother, alleged that a delayed C-section and late administration of antibiotics caused major negative health consequences for J.H.
The jury awarded plaintiff $182.7 million in damages, with that figure now increased to $207 million due to delay damages. The award is the largest medical malpractice verdict in Pennsylvania history.
HUP and the other defendants appealed to the Superior Court, challenging several aspects of the trial court’s decision. The PAMED/AMA brief addressed concerns regarding the verdict slip provided to the jury for completion. Other organizations filed briefs to address other issues of concern in the case.
The brief argued that the question asked on the verdict slip was erroneous. Specifically, that a question asked on the slip wrongly allowed the jury to find HUP liable without making the legally required determination that the treatment of J.H. factually caused J.H.’s injuries. The brief argued that the trial verdict should be set aside and the case returned to the Philadelphia court for a new trial.
The Superior Court rejected that argument. The court found that the trial court did not commit error with its verdict slip, and, even had the slip been erroneous, the error would have been harmless as the judge properly stated the burden of proof during jury instructions. Read the court’s opinion here.